Client Volunteering in Organizations Serving Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impetus for this research comes from a serendipitous but intriguing observation from a recent project of the Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies (CVSS). From 2001-2004, CVSS carried out a longitudinal evaluation of the impact of a new volunteer program on the well-being and activities of individuals with psychiatric disabilities residing in a supportive housing project. While all clients self-reported that they were happy to have volunteers working with them, observed findings indicated that there were very few behavioural improvements. However, one group of resident-clients defied this finding; they demonstrated marked behavioural improvements and their satisfaction levels were higher. Intrigued, we sought answers to these observations. It turned out that these individuals were not only beneficiaries of activities led by outside volunteers; they were also volunteering within their centre, supporting or facilitating activities for other client residents. Providing opportunities for clients with psychiatric disabilities to volunteer was an innovative development at this supportive housing centre, and the results were striking. Keywords: CVSS, Centre for Voluntary Sector Studies, Working Paper Series, TRSM, Ted Rogers School of Management
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".