A Needs Assessment for a Local Social Policy Data Sharing Program
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
Planners seek collaborative and diverse strategies to address complex challenges across Canada. In the Region of Waterloo, local governments and stakeholders adopted The Waterloo Region Community Data Program (WRCDP), a social policy data-sharing system for information on economic and social development. This study examined the needs of Community Data Program (CDP) users to investigate whether CDPs are utilized effectively. We considered how optimal use of CDP data may advance planning to resolve structural and behavioral challenges in municipalities. We surveyed 17 participants from the WRCDP to assess needs of organizational members regarding accessing data, data analysis, and networking. Participants expressed enthusiasm for the CDP’s potential but lacked training in accessing and analyzing available data. A limitation of this study is small participant sample size and how results may not be generalizable to other locations. Organizational members remained optimistic about the system’s potential for planning and policy when provided with the necessary support.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it