An Outcomes Perspective of the Role of Residential Treatment in the System of Care
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
Abstract A variety of factors are putting great pressure on residential treatment centers to justify their role in the child serving system through evidence of impact on the lives of children, youth, and families. The present study describes the role of residential treatment from an outcomes perspective in a midsized state over the course of a 5 year period in which efforts were made to reduce out-of-community placements. The process of developing a system of care approach to the child serving system while matching children and youth needs to the use of residential treatment resulted in placing more challenging children and youth in these placements over time. The results of this process included an improvement in within-episode outcomes from residential treatment. A hinge analysis in which children and youth were described using a common assessment before and after placement in a range of treatments/programs helped explicate the role of residential treatment serving the most challenging children and youth successfully. The necessary length of stay for residential treatment from a clinical perspective depends greatly on the continued treatment options post-discharge. KEYWORDS: residential treatmentoutcomesgrowth curve analysissystem changechild and youthbehavioral health
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