Development of a Measure of Child Welfare Practice Excellence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Many elements contribute to practice excellence within child welfare services, yet there are limited measures available to assess these elements. This article describes the process of developing and pilot-testing a measure of child welfare practice excellence. Method: The Elements of Child Welfare Practice (ECWP) measure was developed following an extensive literature review, with input from child welfare research experts and an anti-colonial practitioner. The ECWP was part of a comprehensive online survey administered during site visits with three Indigenous child welfare agencies in Canada. Results: Polychoric correlations and ordinal alpha revealed the ECWP had strong internal consistency and convergent validity. The ECWP had three subscales related to the importance and delivery of practice elements, and workers’ perception of their practice. Conclusions: This measure showed the potential to be useful in assessing the degree to which child welfare workers intend to and actually engage in elements associated with practice excellence.
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.
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 | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it