An Evaluation of Residential Treatment Programs for Young Offenders in the Waterloo Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper chronicles a comprehensive evaluation of 6 residential facilities for young offenders located within the region of Waterloo. Two kinds of research methodologies were employed in the investigation. One was primarily quantitative in nature, involving the completion of standardized scales for each of the youths who participated in the study (N = 129). The other was qualitative in nature, and involved interviews with a small sample of "graduates" from the centres (N = 9), and some of their parents and guardians (N = 4). Residential treatment was associated with significant improvements on the 2 measures developed specifically for the evaluation: a measure which focused on the specific goals which had been assigned to youths while in the program (Catalogue of Goals for Youth in Residence), and the global index of youth functioning which was empirically generated from residential case files (Inventory of Work Life and Social Skills). Qualitative interviews with program graduates and selected parents and guardians generally confirmed the positive evaluation of the impact of residential facilities on youths and served as the foundation for a series of recommendations for programmatic modifications and improvements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".