Description de l’implantation d’un programme de prévention des problèmes de comportement à l’adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a comprehensive approach to preventing a variety of adolescent problem behaviors, including drug use, delinquency, violence, school dropout and teenage pregnancy. The experimental intervention is designed to enhance protection and reduce risk for these adolescent problem behaviors. The project, Raising Healthy Children (RHC), extends earlier work conducted in the Seattle Social Development Project (Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, O'Donnell, Abbott & Day, 1992; O'Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott & Day, 1995). The interventions are guided by the Social Development Model (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996), a theory that explains the development of both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Because risk and protective factors for these problems are found in multiple social domains, the interventions address these factors through developmentally appropriate strategies in the three major socializing institutions, the family, school, and peer groups. The "school intervention strategy " provides a series of instructional improvement workshops and classroom coaching designed to increase student's commitment and attachment to school while reducing academic failure. The "family intervention strategy " provides parenting workshops and home-based services to increase parents' skills in child rearing, to increase attachment and commitment to the family while decreasing family management problems. The "peer intervention strategy" provides children the opportunity to learn and practice social and emotional skills in the classroom and in social situations. These combined strategies are described in detail. Preliminary analyses reveal significant effects of these strategies on reducing early risk and increasing protection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".