MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018506419 · doi:10.1177/1534650110370714

Errorless Compliance Training to Reduce Extreme Conduct Problems and Intrusive Control Strategies in Home and School Settings

2010· article· en· W2018506419 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Ducharme, Teresa Di Padova, Melody Ashworth

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Case Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Prosocial behaviorPsychologyCompliance (psychology)AggressionPsychological interventionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present case study involved intervention for a 7-year-old boy with a history of extreme aggression and noncompliance. Given the severity of his behavioral difficulties, his parents used highly coercive consequences, including physical restraint, which significantly compromised the parent—child relationship. The authors used errorless compliance training, a success-based, noncoercive intervention strategy to assist the mother in obtaining child cooperation without need for physical intervention. Although initial intervention attempts were ineffective because of the poor quality of the mother—child bond, systematic adjustments to the intervention eventually produced substantial improvements in child compliance in the home. Concurrent use of the intervention in the child’s classroom led to meaningful gains in classroom compliance. Anecdotal reports from the mother after intervention suggested widespread improvements in prosocial behavior and the parent—child relationship. The study findings provided support for use of errorless compliance training as a home and school-based alternative to interventions that require punitive or coercive consequences to suppress severe antisocial behavior.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Case StudiesSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207