MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7114778767 · doi:10.4324/9781003241492-32

Developmental Assets and Tutoring

2024· book-chapter· en· W7114778767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionWelfareService (business)Action (physics)Intervention (counseling)Foster careAction researchChild care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present selected findings from the long-term Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) project (2000–present). From the beginning, the project has aimed to contribute to improved child welfare outcomes and policies in Ontario through the annual assessment of service needs and the monitoring of developmental outcomes among children and youths in out-of-home care in the province. To date, the project has conducted some 80,000 interviews that have included an estimated 35,000 young people, aged 018+ years, their caregivers, and their child welfare workers. We first describe the origins of the OnLAC project in reform-oriented research and policy innovation in the UK. We then discuss the special role that developmental assets have come to play in the action theory of the OnLAC model, based on extensive research by the Search Institute in the US and our own OnLAC results. Next, we present findings on the educational outcomes of Ontario children and youths in care of preschool, primary school, secondary school, and post-secondary ages. There is clearly a need for improved results at all educational levels, through recourse to educational interventions of demonstrated effectiveness. After a brief survey of US and UK sources of evidence-based interventions, we take up the evidence in favour of tutoring, which we believe offers untapped potential for enhancing the educational success of young people in care. We summarize the experimental evidence on the positive effects of tutoring and present the promising results of several randomized trials in Ontario that we and colleagues have conducted of tutoring with children in care. We end by mentioning the improved educational outcomes that are now possible with the advent of high-impact tutoring, which is being actively promoted by https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://ProvenTutoring.org ">ProvenTutoring.org , a recently launched coalition of field-based organizations in collaboration with university researchers in the US.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→