Child maintenance arrangements made after speaking to Child Maintenance Options: Data up to August 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child Maintenance Options (Options) is a free service that provides impartial information and support to help parents make informed choices about child maintenance.One of the primary intentions of the Options service is to encourage parents, where possible, to set up a family-based arrangement.Overall, 174,313 parents had a conversation with Options between February 2018 and January 2019.The estimates in this publication are based on telephone interviews with 5,808 of those parents.In order to understand the long term outcomes of parents who speak to Options we conduct a longitudinal survey.Parents who contacted Options between February 2018 and October 2018 were surveyed at least two months after they called Options to see what child maintenance arrangement they had set up.Some of these parents were surveyed again 9-18 months later in the longitudinal survey to assess whether their arrangements had changed, and if over time Options had successfully supported lasting arrangements.Alongside this survey, and also included within this report are the results from the Options Outcomes quarter 4 survey results.We conduct quarterly surveys to ask parents about their child maintenance arrangements and the extent to which these arrangements may have been influenced by speaking to Options.We also ask parents if they think their arrangements are working well.38,329 parents contacted Options between November 2018 and January 2019 with the estimates in this publication based on telephone interviews with 1,159 of those parents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".