MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390012303 · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12621

Is there a role for hybrid service provision in place‐based initiatives within the human services sector? Findings from an Australian exploratory study

2023· article· en· W4390012303 on OpenAlex
Kerryn Drysdale, Shona Bates, Alison Ritter, Ciara Smyth, Evelyne de Leeuw, Ilan Katz

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Public Administration · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsService delivery frameworkPublic relationsService providerContext (archaeology)CoproductionService (business)BusinessKnowledge managementPolitical scienceMarketingComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The value of place‐based initiatives in the design and delivery of human services has long been recognised, but the need for hybrid service delivery to clients—that is any combination of online and in‐person modalities—has become more apparent in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic. At face value, there may be a perceived contradiction between the reliance on geographical place in place‐based initiatives and online service delivery. Yet, it is inevitable that human services will increasingly be delivered in a hybrid form—even in the context of place‐based initiatives. This exploratory study included a modified Delphi method and deliberative panels with policymakers, service providers, and academics with experience and/or knowledge of hybrid place‐based initiatives. A central finding was the lack of respondents’ shared understanding and ability to link the three central intersecting ideas being examined in this research: ‘hybrid’ and ‘place‐based’ and ‘human services’. The principles underpinning place‐based initiatives need to be retained when incorporating online service delivery within place‐based initiatives. This reflects the need to develop a shared lexicon on hybrid place‐based initiatives and more creative understandings and interpretations of the relationship between people and place. Points for practitioners Increasingly, human services are being designed, implemented, and delivered through place‐based initiatives, yet the success of place‐based initiatives often relies on more than just face‐to‐face service delivery. The COVID‐19 pandemic shifted many human services online, but how this has impacted on place‐based initiatives and their defining features of co‐location, collaboration, and co‐design has not been explored to date. Following the pandemic, both service providers and clients see the benefit in retaining and integrating face‐to‐face and online services, without understanding how best to achieve this with place‐based initiatives. This study draws on practices developed during the pandemic to understand how to best provide hybrid services (integrating in‐person and online services) and shows the relevance of hybrid services to place‐based initiatives and considerations moving forward.

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 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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.228 · 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