MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1890141858 · doi:10.4137/sart.s22464

Impact Evaluation of an Addiction Intervention Program in a Quebec Prison

2015· article· en· W1890141858 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Arseneault, Marc Alain, Chantal Plourde, Francine Ferland, Nadine Blanchette-Martin, Michel Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Abuse Research and Treatment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre Jeunesse de Quebec
FundersMinistry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsPrisonImpulsivityIntervention (counseling)AddictionPsychologyClinical psychologyDistressPsychiatryCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the effects of a prison-based addiction intervention program. The evaluation is based on a multidimensional data collection that draws a portrait of the respondents' substance use, and of their psychological/emotional, social, and judicial spheres. It measures the changes, or lack thereof, in substance use; the psychological/emotional, social, and judicial spheres; as well as the post-treatment services used. METHOD: A quasi-experimental repeated measures design (0, 6 weeks, and 6 months) was used. Effects of the program were identified by comparing the results obtained by a group of inmates who had participated in the program (n = 80; experimental group) with those of another group who had received no intervention (n = 70; control group). RESULTS: The preliminary results suggested a certain treatment effect related to impulsivity and psychological distress. CONCLUSION: Although the preliminary results were promising, the experimental and control groups did not differ significantly when more robust analyses were used.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance Abuse Research and TreatmentSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207