Evaluation of the Dawson College shooting psychological intervention: Moving toward a multimodal extensive plan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, following the shooting at Dawson College, the authorities implemented an intervention plan. This provided an opportunity to analyze the responses to services offered, and afforded a learning opportunity, which led to the proposal of an extensive multimodal short- and long-term psychological plan for future needs. Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered 18 months after the event, involving the participation of 948 students and staff. Mental health problems and the perception of services offered after the shooting were investigated, using standardized measures. Second, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted among a subgroup of participants (support team members; teachers and employees; students and parents) and permitted to gather data on services received and services required. Individual report of events, the extent of psychological impact and services offered and received were analyzed in terms of the following dimensions: intervention philosophy, training, ongoing offer of services and finally, detection and outreach. A significant incidence of disorders and a high rate of exacerbation of preexisting mental disorders were observed within the 18 months following the shooting. Postimmediate and short-term intervention appeared adequate, but the long-term collective vision toward community support and availability of mental health services were lacking. Lessons learned from this evaluation and other school shootings suggest that preparedness and long-term community responses are often overlooked. A multimodal extensive plan is proposed based on a theoretical model from which interventions strategies could be drawn.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".