MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248667480 · doi:10.4324/9780203056509-20

A Brief Overview of Research Techniques Usei to Evaluate Three Employee Assistance Programs Through the Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto Experience

2012· book-chapter· en· W4248667480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaService (business)Association (psychology)Employee assistancePsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along the way, we have among other things gained experience in the area of program evaluation and this paper will outline the major thrust of our work in this area* Our goal is not so much to focus on the results of the studies as it is to generally describe the techniques used. Although our results were universally positive —in every case well beyond even our expectations —the more interesting story for us was the manner in which we derived evaluative information that would stand the test of both the rules of client confidentiality and academic rigour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→