MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017976517

Child Development Programme in Thunder Bay : an evaluation / by Janis Williams. --

2017· other· en· W7017976517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThunderChild developmentBayMeasure (data warehouse)Social changeMental development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

List of Figures 1 The relationship between measures of parental satisfaction with the Child Development Programme and measures of parental interaction 29 2 The relationship between the measure of parental satisfaction and change in mental age 30 3 The relationship between the measure .> of parental satisfaction and change in motor age 31 iii Abstract The Child Development Programme (CDP) in Thunder Bay is a provincially funded programme for children with developmental delays or behaviour problems.This study evaluated the CDP with respect to its attainment of the programme goal: to enhance positive parent-child interactions while concurrently facilitating the child's mental and motor development.The information used in this study was obtained from parent questionnaires and the children's files.Parents reported an increase in positive interactions with their children, which was positively correlated with parental satisfaction with the programme.Parental satisfaction was found to be uncorrelated with the developmental changes achieved by the child.The developmental changes shown by the children were unrelated to the following: age at entry into the programme; Bayley scores; parental ratings of change; and graduate status.Analyses did not indicate a significant relationship between diagnosis and length of programme involvement.However, there was an indication that children with some degree of organic impairment were involved with the CDP longer than children with environmental risk factors or behaviour problems.Overall, the CDP appeared to achieve part of its goal, the enhancement of parent-child interactions, but did not consistently indicate the ability to concurrently facilitate child development.Recommendations were made that would assist the programme in systematizing its procedures.Suggestions were also made facilitate an ongoing assessment of the appropriateness of individual programming.that would adequacy and Bronfenbrenner, U. Is early intervention effective?In Handbook of Evaluation Researcb (Vol.2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)French-language works237,207