MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Relationship‐Based Intervention to Improve Social Connectedness in Street‐Involved Youth: A Pilot Study

2011· article· en· W1893411794 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth McCay, Susan Quesnel, John Langley, Heather Beanlands, Linda Cooper, Rebecca Blidner, Andria Aiello, Naomi Mudachi, C. Susan Howes, Karen Bach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial connectednessIntervention (counseling)Mental healthPsychologyDowntownPsychological resilienceSocial supportClinical psychologyPsychiatryGerontologyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: Street-involved youth experience a range of mental health problems with elevated rates of psychiatric disorders compared with non-homeless youth. The overall objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the impact of a relationship-based intervention for homeless youth receiving services from agencies in downtown Toronto. METHODS: The final sample included 15 homeless youth who met the study inclusion criteria. The intervention and comparison groups were compared at baseline and post-treatment on measures of mental health symptoms, hopelessness, self-esteem, resilience, and social connectedness. FINDINGS: Participants receiving the intervention demonstrated a significant improvement in social connectedness, with a trend toward decreased hopelessness. Those participants who did not receive the intervention did not demonstrate any improvements in social connectedness and hopelessness. CONCLUSION: This preliminary pilot study suggests that providing a relationship-based intervention to street-involved youth may offer promise to strengthen social relationships and to mitigate overwhelming hopelessness and despair.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric NursingSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207