MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028568297

Evaluation of the Community Group Programme for Children & Young People: final report

2012· book· en· W7028568297 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMiddlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) · 2012
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupSalience (neuroscience)Work (physics)Program evaluationGroup processsort
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The report presents findings from the evaluation of the Community Group Programme (CGP). The CGP is a 12-week psycho-educational, group work programme for children and young people who have experienced domestic violence. The Programme was developed in Canada and is being rolled out in England for the first time across 32 London boroughs. The programme is unique in working with children and their mothers concurrently and in a child-focused way. The study takes a theory-driven approach to evaluation. We employ a mixed method research strategy to answer questions of process (how does the CGP work?), impact (does the CGP make a difference and, if so, what sort of difference), salience (does the CGP matter to children and mothers and if so, in what ways?) and cost (what is the cost of CGP?). The final report presents findings from questionnaires, interviews and focus groups with children, mothers and professionals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.196 · 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