MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026008118 · doi:10.1037/a0015939

Predictors of residential placement following a psychiatric crisis episode among children and youth in state custody.

2009· article· en· W2026008118 on OpenAlexaff
Jung Min Park, Neil Jordan, Richard A. Epstein, David S. Mandell, John S. Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryResidential careMedicinePsychologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the extent and correlates of entry into residential care among 603 children and youth in state custody who were referred to psychiatric crisis services. Overall, 27% of the sample was placed in residential care within 12 months after their 1st psychiatric crisis screening. Among the children and youth placed in residential care, 51% were so placed within 3 months of their 1st crisis screening, with an additional 22% placed between 3 and 6 months after screening. Risk behavior and functioning, psychiatric hospitalization following screening, older age, placement type, and caregiver's capacity for supervision were associated with increased residential placement. The findings highlight the importance of early identification and treatment of behavior and functioning problems following a crisis episode among children and youth in state custody to reduce the need for subsequent residential placement. Having an inpatient psychiatric episode following a crisis episode places children at greater risk for residential placement, suggesting that the hospital is an important point for diversion programs. Children and youth in psychiatric crisis may also benefit from efforts to include their families in the treatment process.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OrthopsychiatrySame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207