Community‐Based co‐occurring disorder (COD) intermediate and advanced treatment for offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against a backdrop of increasing concern about the adequacy of treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental disorders (typically known as "co-occurring disorders," or COD) in the criminal justice system, this article attempts to provide empirical evidence for a typology of levels of COD treatment for offenders in both prison and community settings. The paper investigates two levels of treatment programs for COD; "intermediate" programs, in which treatment programming has been designed primarily for offenders with a single disorder, and "advanced" programs, in which programming has been designed to provide integrated substance abuse treatment and mental health services. Findings from a national survey of program directors indicated that both intermediate and advanced COD treatment programs were similar in their general approach to substance abuse treatment, but differed considerably in their treatment of mental disorders, where the advanced programs employed significantly more evidence- and consensus-based practices. Results provide support for the distinction between intermediate- and advanced-level services for offenders with COD and support a typology that defines advanced programs as integrating a range of evidence- and consensus-based practices so as to modify treatment sufficiently to address both diseases.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".