FRAMEWORK FOR REACTION FRAMEWORK FOR REACTION: THE POLITICS OF EVALUATING NORTH AMERICA'S FIRST SAFE INJECTION SITE By
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ii Program evaluation is inherently political, and the evaluation of a state-sponsored injection site for drug users especially so. Stakeholder analysis is one element of a comprehensive evaluation, one that usually takes place after the program has been in operation for some time. In the case of the City of Vancouver's decision to establish such a site, it was clear that there was already stakeholder opinion prior to the opening of the site. This study examines pre- and post-trial stakeholder opinion by reviewing media and other accounts of the pre-trial public debate, and by interviewing six major stakeholders eight months into the trial. Special attention was given to the issue of how to include the voice of a marginalized population in a stakeholder analysis, and four principles were proposed as a means to guide the stakeholder analysis piece of the initial evaluation of this highly controversial initiative. iii
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 | 0.185 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 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".