MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254089503 · doi:10.3886/icpsr04080

Evaluation of the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative in Four Tribal Sites in the United States, 1995-1999

2014· dataset· en· W4254089503 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Richard Nichols, Ted Holappa, Anne Litchfield

Bibliographic record

VenueICPSR Data Holdings · 2014
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceCriminologyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the Tribal Strategies Against Violence (TSAV) Initiative. The TSAV was a federal-tribal partnership, lasting from 1995 to 1999, designed to develop comprehensive strategies in tribal communities to reduce crime, violence, and substance abuse. This study involved four of the seven TSAV sites: the Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes in Montana, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in Michigan, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota. A survey of TSAV stakeholders at the four sites was conducted in the summer and fall of 1999. The objectives of the survey were to gauge TSAV stakeholders' perceptions about the following: (1) the serious crime, violence, and quality of life issues in each community and the extent to which the local TSAV initiative had addressed those issues, (2) the intent and ultimate outcomes of the TSAV program, (3) obstacles to successful implementation of TSAV activities, and (4) decision-making processes used in planning and implementing TSAV locally. Offense data were also gathered at the Fort Peck site for 1995 to 1998 and at the Grand Traverse Band site for 1997 to 1999.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICPSR Data HoldingsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207