Transitioning into the Community: Outcomes of a Pilot Housing Program for Forensic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Pilot (TRHP) was designed to transition hospitalized forensic patients to the community. Twenty clients and their clinicians in two Ontario cities completed measures on functioning, substance use, recovery, social support, and quality of life at admission to the program and then every 6 months until 18 months post-admission. Clients also responded to open-ended questions on the impact of the program and living in the community on their recovery. Three (15%) clients re-offended. Eleven clients (55%) experienced rehospitalization; however, brief rehospitalization was seen as part of the recovery process. Level of community functioning was stable across time and 35% of clients had a decrease in the restrictiveness of their disposition order. Clients described numerous characteristics of community living that contributed to improvements in functioning, such as integration into the community, social contact, and newfound independence. Some aspects of TRHP that encouraged recovery included developing new skills and knowledge, staff support, and the programming that engaged clients in treatment and recovery-oriented activities. Findings suggest that forensic patients can transition successfully into the community with appropriate support and housing.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".