Brief service in a child guidance clinic : a preliminary survey : a descriptive study based on Child Guidance Clinic cases, Burnaby, 1954-57
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to survey a sampling of brief service cases in a child guidance clinic in an effort to discover why these cases could be treated on a brief or short-term basis. Because of the need to help more people in a given length of time and the limited agency staff and high case loads, it is very desirable that treatment on a brief service basis be expanded if it can be done without sacrificing good casework practice. Making use of the transcribed notes made during the Clinic Diagnostic Conferences, the presenting problems, diagnoses, number of contacts and person to whom service was given were tabulated for each of 62 cases which were designated by the Clinic as brief service cases. It was found that there is no formalized definition of brief service at the Clinic and the giving of brief service does not appear to be a planned part of the general program. The data assembled from the diagnostic conference notes indicate that there has been no organized effort to delineate properly what a brief service case is. Because of the success of well organized brief service programs in other agencies, it is suggested that such a program should be planned for at the Clinic and some of the steps in organizing such a program are suggested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".