MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378605776 · doi:10.1353/cye.2005.0003

Building a Child Impact Assessment Tool for the City of Edmonton

2005· article· en· W4378605776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bob Yates

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren Youth and Environments · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)PovertyChild povertyLocal governmentPolitical scienceEconomic growthBusinessPublic administrationSociologySocial scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children, Youth and Environments 15(2), 2005 Building a Child Impact Assessment Tool for the City of Edmonton Bob Yates Yates, Thorn & Associates Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Citation: Yates, Bob. (2005). “Building a Child Impact Assessment Tool for the City of Edmonton.” Children, Youth and Environments 15(2): 371-377. . Comment on This Article Abstract Few Canadian cities have taken their commitments to children and young people more seriously than the City of Edmonton. The City has recognized that the local government agency in Edmonton must take the lead in promoting the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The firm of Yates, Thorn & Associates, a Victoria, British Columbia-based social planning consultancy, was hired by the City of Edmonton to help develop specific aspects of its Children’s Services Framework. This report describes the development of a Child Impact Assessment Tool. Keywords: Child-friendly cities, child impact assessment tool, Canada© 2005 Children, Youth and Environments Building a Child Impact Assessment Tool for the City of Edmonton 372 Background The demands on local governments in Canada and elsewhere to provide effective services for children and youth are increasing along many dimensions: • The expectations of parents and others regarding the range and quality of services are expanding. • More children are living in poverty now than at any time in the past. Their need for services is even greater than that of those children who have the ability to pay. • Federal and provincial governments are downloading services onto local governments, and providing funding for new services such as childcare. At the same time, they frequently adopt legal (such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)) or promotional (such as Alberta’s Promise) frameworks which local governments are required to follow. • Multiple agencies are increasingly involved as partners in the delivery of services. This is positive, but also demanding of time and resources. • The value of all services is constantly being evaluated and in some cases questioned by a tax-conscious public. • Communities are focusing more on outputs than inputs. The question is no longer “how many hockey practices did you attend?” but rather “did you win the game?” or at the very least “how well did you play?” When all this is put together with the inherent vulnerability and lack of political power of children and youth, it requires local governments to include frameworks and processes in their policy making that consistently and continually prompt the question, “What will be the impact on children and youth?” The City of Edmonton recognized that this question must be addressed as part of the implementation of its Children's Services Framework. Consequently, the City of Edmonton Community Services Department requested Yates, Thorn & Associates1 to develop a Child Impact Assessment Tool: a “lens” through which the impact of programs, policies and initiatives on children and youth could be examined. Early discussion made it clear that the Child Impact Assessment process must be: • Practical - it must be simple to use, providing a set of functional tools for city administrators and elected officials. • Visible - it must act to reinforce the need for a broad range of services for children and youth. • Visionary - it must be far-sighted in its vision of services for children, with the goal of putting Edmonton at the leading edge of child-friendly cities. Building a Child Impact Assessment Tool for the City of Edmonton 373 To meet these objectives, it must be designed to: • Educate various groups about children’s services. These groups include internal department and city staff, councilors, external agency staff and volunteers, as well as the general public. • Advocate for a child-friendly Edmonton. This implies a more proactive approach focused not just on “means” but also on “ends.” • Integrate child-focused efforts into the business planning processes of the City. The Child Impact Assessment will only be effective in the long term if it is a part of the machinery of government. • Focus on the key issues of importance to the children and youth of Edmonton, which had been identified through consultation with children and adults during the development of the Children’s Services Framework. Moving Edmonton towards Being a “Child...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren Youth and EnvironmentsSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207