Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the conditions of funding the statewide Alaska FAS Prevention Project, SAMHSA \nrequested that the project be evaluated by an independent team of evaluators. This evaluation \ncontract was awarded to the Center for Human Development (CHD) at the University of Alaska \nAnchorage (UAA), with the request that the evaluation be conducted by an interdisciplinary team \nof evaluators from across the UAA campus. Staff at CHD subsequently selected various \nprofessionals from the UAA community to build the Evaluation Team and to divide the work \ninvolved in the evaluation of the FAS Prevention Project. The FAS Project Principal Evaluation \nTeam selection began in February 2001 (3rd Quarter of FY 01 of the grant). In August 2001, a \ncomprehensive evaluation plan was submitted to the FAS Advisory Team and State Office of \nFAS for review and approval. Following submittal of the evaluation plan application to the \nUniversity of Alaska Institutional Review Board (IRB) and receipt of funding from the state in \nAugust 2001, the detailed actions defined in the Diagnostic Evaluation Plan were initiated in \nOctober 2001 (2nd Quarter of FY 02 of the grant). \nThe Alaska Comprehensive and Specialized Evaluation Services (ACSES) was one of the groups \napproached by CHD to participate as a member of the FAS Project Principal Evaluation Team. \nACSES was honored to take on the evaluation of diagnosis-related activities, committing to \nactivities to meet five large goals. One of these goals was the review of FAS diagnostic methods \nthat have been used in Alaska and across the United States. This report provides an update on \nactivities and findings about this goal to date.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".