MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067624544

Michigan Veterans Community Action Teams: Detroit Metro Veteran Focus Groups Report

2014· report· en· W7067624544 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

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2014
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupAgency (philosophy)Veterans AffairsProsperityService (business)Needs assessmentService delivery frameworkAction (physics)Community organizationService member
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Michigan Veterans Community Action Teams (MIVCAT) project is a collaborative community model created by the Altarum to enhance the delivery of services from public, private, and nonprofit organizations to Veterans and their family members. The MIVCAT project was introduced in Michigan by the Michigan Veterans Affairs Agency (MVAA) in August 2013, with pilots in two of Michigan's ten Prosperity Regions – Detroit Metro Region 10, comprising Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties; and West Michigan Region 4, consisting of Allegan, Barry, Ionia, Kent, Lake, Mason, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, and Ottawa counties.To discern the needs of Veterans and the services available to them, Altarum gathered information through several channels. Altarum conducted a community assessment that included interviews with key regional leaders, focus groups with Veterans, a survey of Veterans, and a survey of service providers. The focus groups with Veterans in Detroit Metro, reported here, collected information on: how Veterans find out about resources, services, and benefits; the best ways to reach Veterans; Veterans' experiences with seeking services; sources of support for Veterans; and recommendations for improving the Veteran service system.Altarum conducted six focus groups as part of a community assessment for the MIVCAT project in the Detroit Metro Prosperity Region. There were two focus groups of primarily Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Veterans, two groups of primarily Vietnam-era Veterans, and two groups of women Veterans from multiple eras. Planning and recruiting for the focus groups was led by Altarum staff with support from regional coalition leaders. Four of the focus groups were held in Taylor, one in downtown Detroit, and one in Redford. Forty-two Veterans participated in the focus groups and all of these Veterans completed a survey that included questions about their background and characteristics.Following are the key findings from the focus groups. Note that italicized text are direct quotes taken from transcripts of the focus groups. The words in brackets help clarify the meaning of the quotation by substituting a person's position or organization for their name or adding information that was discerned from other parts of the interview or the tone used by the focus group participant.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)French-language works237,207