An Assessment of Juvenile Drug Courts’ Knowledge of Evidence‐Based Practices, Data Collection, and the Use of AA/NA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of evidence‐based practices (EBPs) has become a core component of juvenile drug courts (JDCs). This research, using a sample ofJDCs listed with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, tests two current assumptions in the field: 1) manyJDCs do not use or are unaware of their use ofEBPs and 2)JDCs tend to overuse sober support groups (e.g.,AA/NA), which are thought to be inappropriate for youth. Results suggest that nearly allJDCs, in the sample, reported usingEBPs; however, only about a quarter of them collected treatment data and knew the outcomes of the data. Also, only about half of theJDCs use sober support groups (predominantlyAA/NA), and nearly all of the sober support groups were tailored toward youth. Overall, these findings suggest that the current assumptions in the field do not accurately reflect the practices reported by theseJDCs. Implications are discussed.
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 | 0.185 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".