Measuring the Restrictiveness of Living Environments for Children and Youth
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 Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale has long been the primary way to conceptualize the “restrictiveness” of a child’s living situation. However, changes in systems of care and other factors have created a need to revisit how restrictiveness is conceptualized and measured. A measure was created to assess an environment’s level of restrictiveness and form the basis for empirically created general environment types. The measure was refined using expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing. Over 1,000 child organizations and older youth were invited to participate, with responses completed for 446 youth. The sample was reduced to 313 because of a large response from one setting. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution suggesting low, moderate, elevated, and high restrictiveness for a simplified general environment typology. The data also suggest overlap among clusters and that settings with the same names can vary. Limitations are described, and plans for how the measure will be further developed are outlined.
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) | 0.000 | 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