Perspectives on effectiveness: what works in a juvenile fire awareness and intervention program?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Deliberate lighting of fires by juveniles is both a public health concern and a community issue. This collaborative multiagency project aimed to establish best practice guidelines for child and youth firesetter programs in Australia. The study proceeded in two parts. Firstly, the practices and perceived effectiveness of the Victorian Juvenile Fire Awareness and Intervention Program (JFAIP) were investigated and contrasted with other Australian and overseas programs (US, Canada and NZ). Reviewing the literature, extensive interviewing, comparative analysis of approaches and site visits enabled the development of criteria associated with juvenile firesetter programs that were well designed, well implemented, and appeared to provide effective interventions. Secondly, pre and post fire-specific and psychosocial risk factors were investigated with a sample of 29 firesetter boys (7-13 years)referred to the JFAIP using the firesetting risk interview (FRI) and children’s firesetting interview (CFI). Children’s recidivism was also prospectively followed-up for 12 months. Pre and post findings on the FRI suggested that all JFAIP clients benefited from the intervention. From the parent’s perspective, lower fire-specific risk factors were reported after the intervention, but as expected psychosocial risks remained unchanged. From the child’s perspective on the CFI, some fire-specific risk variables had improved. Of the 29 children in the sample, nine participants were dentified as recidivists. Thus a third of the sample, although receiving an intervention, continued to light fires. Recidivist and nonrecidivist children were also compared on FRI and CFI and significant differences were found in both fire-specific and psychosocial risk factors. The study highlighted that high risk and low risk clients participate in fire safety education programs in Australia. Low risk clients benefited from a fire safety intervention emphasising education. Thus, fire safety education programs may be appropriate as a sole intervention with some firesetters under certain conditions. However, about a third of the JFAIP clients were recidivists and would benefit from additional interventions. It is recommended that juvenile firesetting programs follow best practice guidelines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle