Title III-E Report YTD 1st Quarter-4th Quarter 2007 \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family Caregiver Support Program (Title III-E) - The Administration on Aging (AoA) has determined that for Title III-E, the actual family caregiver is the client, not the older person receiving the services. Iowa NAPIS (National Aging Program Information System) collects and reports Title III-E service/performance data and related program management information to the federal and state government in a format like the other Title III services. The major shift in reporting relates to who is the client. As a result, this Title III-E Client/Service Unit Report shows the number of caregivers who receive services and the number of units by service category from the Title III-E funding of the Older Americans Act, the AoA, and limited state general fund dollars. Additionally, it shows the number of persons served by individual services and total "unduplicated" client count across all services. In other words, if you add the total number of clients (caregivers) from all services, it is higher than the actual number of persons served across all services because some people need and receive more than one service. (Please note: this is preliminary data, and may be subject to change.) \nTitle III-E Report YTD 1st Quarter 2007 \nTitle III-E Report YTD 2nd Quarter 2007 \nTitle III-E Report YTD 3rd Quarter 2007 \nTitle III-E Report YTD 4th Quarter 2007 \n \n \n
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.018 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".