MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926422511

Examining Wraparound Fidelity in Canadian Schools

2019· article· en· W2926422511 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nadine Bartlett, Trevi B. Freeze

Bibliographic record

Venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityMental healthTeamworkMedical educationPsychologyNursingMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing the mental health needs of children and youth is a priority. One way to provide support for children and youth with severe mental health needs is through the implementation of the wraparound approach in school-based settings. This study explored the fidelity of implementation of the wraparound approach for two youth with severe mental health needs in two rural schools in Manitoba, Canada. Perspectives from key stakeholders on wraparound teams were obtained using the Wraparound Fidelity Index (WFI-EZ). Wraparound team meetings also were observed using the Team Observation Measure (TOM-2). Results indicated that the school-based wraparound teams, led by trained wraparound facilitators, showed adherence to most elements of the wraparound practice model. Areas, which demonstrated the highest degree of fidelity, included the provision of needs-based and strength-based support. In one school, lower levels of fidelity were found with respect to the presence of natural supports and the caregiver’s perceptions of teamwork. Identifying the areas of relative strength and weakness in the implementation of school-based wraparound may help to guide future program planning and training in wraparound implementation, and may highlight the capacity of schools in Manitoba to lead the provision of this intensive interdisciplinary support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207