MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308262987 · doi:10.4148/2161-4148.1083

The Shalem Counselling Assistance Plan for Students (CAPS): Delivering Social Work Services to Faith-Based School Systems

2022· article· en· W4308262987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Vander Vennen, Marg Smit-Vandezande, Ken Van Wyk, Mikaeli Cavell, Danielle VandenAkker, Richard Csiernik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of School Social Work · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParallelsFaithWork (physics)Plan (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Social workPublic relationsPolitical sciencePublic administrationSociologyEconomic growthManagementLawEngineeringGeographyOperations managementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ontario, Canada, non-Catholic faith-based schools do not receive provincial government funding but are funded primarily by families of students and through fundraising. As a result, historically school-based provision of counselling or school social work resources to students has been the exception rather than the rule, as this has typically been considered an adjunct resource. A new initiative was launched in the province of Ontario in 2011 to address this gap, the Counselling Assistance Plan for Students (CAPS). CAPS was premised on another novel idea, a Congregational Assistance Plan, which itself grew out of concepts derived from Employee Assistance Programming that has roots dating back to the 19th century in Canada. While CAPS has parallels to Student Assistance Programming (SAP), which exists throughout the United States, development of SAP has not taken hold in Canada. This article examines the origins of CAPS, its development, and the nature of assistance it has provided to the schools that have been early adopters.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of School Social WorkSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207