MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096144025

The Service and Outcome Measurement

2002· article· en· W7096144025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Outcome (game theory)Best practiceHuman servicesInformation systemTraining (meteorology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Service and Outcome Measurement System (SOMS) was de-veloped by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) to be a tool for promoting employment. SOMS was intended to help frontline staff in local public employment service offices counsel job-seekers about the best strategies for gaining employment and to assist analysts and managers in determining the best employment and/or training strategies for specific client groups. A microcomputer-based prototype of SOMS was built in 1994. It had three main elements: 1) a relational database of client specific information for employment insurance bene-ficiaries and/or participants of HRDC employment or training pro-grams, 2) a means for examining the results of past services provided by the public employment service, and 3) a computerized model to pre-dict what services would most benefit a particular job-seeker. In 1997, an algorithm was added to SOMS for predicting what service would best promote employment among groups defined by geographic and

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.911
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207