A Randomized Trial of Wraparound Facilitation Versus Usual Child Protection Services
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
Objective: To evaluate whether the addition of a wraparound facilitator to regular child protection services improved child and family functioning over 20 months. Method: A single blind randomized controlled trial with concealment and stratification across three sites ( N = 135 eligible families with substantiated maltreatment). Results: Based on 2 × 2 mixed analysis of variance and intention to treat, both groups improved in child impairments, d = −.60 [−.81, −.39], caregiver psychological distress, d = −.33 [−.52, −.13], and family resources, d = .44 [.27, .62]. No measurable benefit was associated with the intervention (e.g., child impairments, d = .14 [−.12, .52]). However, treatment fidelity analysis revealed that many components of wraparound were either missing or present in both groups. Conclusions: The presence of a facilitator alone did not appear to improve child or family functioning if the various components of wraparound were not adequately implemented.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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