The Safe Harbors Youth Intervention Project: inter-sectoral collaboration to address sexual exploitation in Minnesota
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
The authors aimed to evaluate the Safe Harbors Youth Intervention Project inter-sectoral collaboration to improve continuity and appropriateness of services for sexually exploited children and adolescents. The study was carried on through an intensive, single case study, drawing on interviews and focus groups with experiential youths (n=125) and multi-sectoral stakeholders (n=196), documented activities, and repeated interviews with collaborating team members (n=29), teen clients (n=46) and parents (n=22). The collaboration was designed around an eight-step process for creating victim-centered protocols within and across organizations, altering services to bridge gaps in care, and creating training tools for the different sectors. The results of the study showed an initial needs assessment documented fragmented care and problematic communication across departments and sectors. The shared protocol development among decision makers from each agency, focused on best practices and evidence-based interventions, fostered trusting relationships, improved awareness of different roles and services, and speeded practice changes to remove barriers to care for sexually exploited youths. A task-focused collaboration with a shared community-wide protocol, increases transparency between services, and ongoing inter-sectoral training helps healthcare team foster a meaningful response to sexually exploited youths.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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