A comparison of day care funding in an administrative district of municipality with extended competence of České Budějovice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis compares funding of domiciliary services in the administration district of České Budějovice, the municipality with the extended scope of performance. In the theoretical part I focus on the history of the development of domiciliary social services provided on site and I define the social service at first. Then, I identify the different specifics of social services and their characteristics. Attention is also devoted to funding of social services in the Czech Republic and European countries. I also show the differences in management in the non-profit sector. The most important section of the thesis analyzes domiciliary service and gives its definition. Further, the thesis contains practical part, which compares the collected data on the domiciliary services. It specifies services provided within the domiciliary services, funds granted for the service, number of clients, basic information on providers and their pricelists. The data were collected as of the last quarter of 2011. The target of the thesis was to compare the income and expenditures of the domiciliary services provided in the administration district of České Budějovice, the municipality with the extended scope of performance. For the applied methodology I selected qualitative research and the secondary analysis of data as the applied method. The conducted research analysed four types of services provided in the administration district. The original hypothesis of the thesis that the assessed providers have identical average cost per 1 user proved to be invalid.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".