Comprehensive Costing of Support Services for Vulnerable Populations: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Comprehensive costing of human services remains an understudied issue in evaluating health and social services. Evaluations done to date have either considered only some of the services offered to clients or restricted the examination to costs borne by programs. Most studies to date have been conducted in the United States and Britain, countries that have different systems of health and social services than Canada. This article presents a case study of the use of a “comprehensive costing approach” in a Canadian context. The approach examines the full range of costs of health and social services and other supports associated with assisting a person with severe and persistent mental illness to live in the community. The case study represents a pilot program (funded by the Ministry of Health in Ontario) to provide specialized support services for a consumer to live in the community. Cost comparisons developed around the initiation of the pilot program in the present evaluation examined the consumer’s initial months in the program and a period prior to entering the program when the consumer was receiving standard care in the community, including a period of hospitalization. Costs were compared according to different domains such as accommodation, social benefits, and health and social services. Perspectives of program planners on the impact of costing evaluations for a case study are provided, followed by limitations and future directions for the methodology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".