The Development of Program Evaluation Tools for Women and Children at Rural Women’s Shelters
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
Women’s shelters have faced a near-constant state of flux since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This, combined with decades of being severely under-resourced, has culminated in a lack of program evaluation within women’s shelters. As such, the purpose of this research was to develop two universal program evaluation tools that will meet the needs of service users (i.e., women and children) and providers at two rural women’s shelters in Ontario. To develop the tools in partnership with the shelters, the Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health, the Delphi Method, and Thorne’s Interpretive Description approaches were employed. Two tools were developed, with the adult version consisting of 18 questions (e.g., open-ended, Likert scales) and the child version consisting of nine (e.g., yes/no). Future research should explore the utility, feasibility, and acceptability of implementing these tools across a range of women’s shelters, including those of varying geographic and cultural contexts. Keywords: program evaluation; women; children; women’s shelters; rural _________________________________________________________________ Élaboration d’outils d’évaluation de programmes pour les femmes et les enfants dans les refuges pour femmes en milieu rural Les refuges pour femmes sont en constante évolution depuis le début de la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette situation, combinée à des décennies de manque de ressources, a entraîné un manque d’évaluation de programmes au sein des refuges pour femmes. L’objectif de cette recherche était donc de développer deux outils universels d’évaluation de programmes pour répondre aux besoins des utilisateurs de services (c.-à-d. les femmes et les enfants) et des prestataires de services dans deux refuges pour femmes en milieu rural en Ontario. Pour développer les outils en partenariat avec les refuges, le cadre d’évaluation de programmes en santé publique, la méthode Delphi et les approches de description interprétative de Thorne ont été utilisés. Deux outils ont été développés, la version adulte comprenant 18 questions (e.g., échelles de Likert ouvertes) et la version enfant comprenant neuf questions (e.g., oui/non). Les recherches futures devraient explorer l’utilité, la faisabilité et l’acceptabilité de la mise en oeuvre de ces outils dans un éventail de refuges pour femmes, y compris ceux de contextes géographiques et culturels variés. Mots clés : évaluation de programmes, femmes, enfants, refuges pour femmes, milieu rural
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it