Toronto Drug Treatment Court: Participant Intake Characteristics as Predictors of “Successful” Program Completion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through descriptive and multivariate analyses, program outcomes for three groups of Toronto Drug Treatment Court participants (TDTC) were compared focusing on their substance use, legal, and socioeconomic differences at entry into the program, and their compliance behaviors during the first month of the program. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that graduate and expelled non-engaged participants were significantly different from the moment they started the program. At the time of application to the program expelled non-engaged participants used crack/cocaine on more days in the prior 90-day period, were in custody at their first TDTC appearance, had more criminal convictions over their lifetime, reported more recent substance use, and committed more breaches of their bail conditions than the other two participant groups. However, differences between graduate and expelled-engaged participants were not as clear, indicating important program outcome similarities between the two groups and how drug treatment court success should be conceptualized and measured.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it