How Does the Canadian Juvenile Justice System Respond to Detained Youth with Substance Use Associated Problems? Gaps, Challenges, and Emerging Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a juvenile justice system that, since its inception in 1908, has been predicated on meeting the rehabilitative needs of youth, Canada has few specialized programs for substance misusing young offenders, preferring more holistic approaches. This is in keeping with an addictions treatment system that has evolved recently in the direction of more integrated services within the general health care and social services delivery systems. In addition, Canada has tended to emphasize community-based over institutional treatment programs. Nevertheless, for youth in conflict with the law, "substance abuse" is recognized as a significant risk factor for recidivism. The approximately 9000 young persons held in custodial facilities on any given day across the country are exposed to a variety of programs aimed at reducing antisocial behavior and hence, re-offending. Some of these have a substance use component. Programs for Aboriginal youth offer some of the most innovative approaches for particular drug use problems. This article provides an overview of the Canadian response and elaborates features of some programs, particularly Multisystemic Therapy, mainly in the province of Ontario. Few programs have received adequate evaluation, however, and the need for systematic assessment is crucial for the development of future effective interventions for youth with multiple drug and other problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".