Implementation of a Program Planning and Review Model at Winnipeg Child and Family Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes a practicum that examines a specific quality assurance approach in a child welfare agency. The practicum was designed to facilit te participation in the implementation of an inclusive, internal Program Planning and Review Model within the context of a program for pregnant and parenting adolescents. The intervention plan for the practicum included four specific components: (1) a review of the literature regarding quality assurance methodologies, client involvement in evaluation, and evaluation utilization; (2) implementation of a Program Planning and Review Model within the context of a program for pregnant and parenting adolescents; (3) qualitative interviews with clients; and, (4) a critique of the process and a discussion of the implications for the Model's utility. The Program Planning and Review Model is a quality management process which provides a wide range of information to assist management and the targeted program in decision-making and planning and improvement efforts. The implementation of the Model involved a multidisciplinary peer review team and transfer of learning principles as a means for extending the quality assurance process beyond the individual program being reviewed. The findings of this study indicate that the overall, Program Planning and Review Model which incorporates peer teams based on internal and external collateral participation appears to be a viable means to attaining information for agency program planning and improvement efforts. However, in order to maximize the potential benefits of such as Model, including review utilization and the transfer of learning, a greater level of involvement for both program staff and clients in all phases of a review process is required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".