MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114440935 · doi:10.1080/10509674.2012.754826

Findings of a Formative Evaluation of a Transitional Housing Program for Forensic Patients Discharged into the Community

2013· article· en· W2114440935 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Cherner, Joan Nandlal, John Ecker, Tim Aubry, Donna Pettey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Offender Rehabilitation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mental Health AssociationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentMetropolitan areaContext (archaeology)Mental healthRehabilitationStrengths and weaknessesCommunity servicePopulationMedical educationPsychologyProgram evaluationPilot programUrban communityNursingMedicinePublic relationsPedagogyPolitical sciencePsychiatryPublic administrationEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using results from a formative evaluation, this article describes the transitional rehabilitation housing pilot (TRHP) program located in two metropolitan Canadian cities. TRHP is an innovative community mental health service, created to support hospitalized forensic patients in their transition to living independently in the community. The evaluation used a multimethod, multi-informant approach to describe TRHP services and assess their quality. Results suggest that TRHP is serving the intended population and generally being implemented as planned. Stakeholders identified numerous strengths and weaknesses of the program. Findings are discussed in the context of previous research and their implications for future program development.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Offender RehabilitationSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207