School as the Entry Point: Assessing Adherence to the Basic Tenets of the Wraparound Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to address the problem behaviors of children and youth, professionals have advocated for the implementation of three-tiered prevention programs: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The wraparound approach has been advanced as an appropriate tertiary program that can be used to address the complex behaviors and needs of students and their families. Although researchers have explored adherence to the basic tenets of the wraparound approach when community mental health settings serve as the entry point, it appears that there is virtually no description or information on adherence when schools serve as the entry point. The purpose of this study was to examine adherence to the basic tenets of the wraparound approach when the school serves as the entry point. Results from 112 observations identified some strengths and weaknesses in the adherence to the basic tenets of the wraparound approach when school serves as the entry point. Limitations, future research needs, and practical implications are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it