AN EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAM MODEL FOR FACILITATING THERAPEUTIC RESPONSES TO PAIN-BASED BEHAVIOR IN RESIDENTIAL CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and young people in residential care have often lived lives saturated with loss, neglect, rejection, and traumatic experiences. Children express the pain of trauma in various ways, namely pain-based behaviors manifesting in ways that often leave their care givers confused, frustrated, frightened, angry or exhausted. For residential caregivers to respond to children and young people in a consistent and therapeutic manner, residential environments must provide an ethos of respect, caring, and trust, creating a safe place for children and staff to live and learn together. This paper describes the Children and Residential Experiences (CARE) model, its implementation, and evidence for its effectiveness. CARE is a trauma-informed, principle-based, multi-component program designed to enhance the social dynamics in group care settings and help agencies create a living environment that provides developmentally enriching experiences for children in their care. By incorporating the CARE principles throughout all levels of the organization and into daily practice, the CARE program model has been shown to improve the capacity of staff to establish positive developmental relationships with the children in their care, offer developmentally enriching experiences and a “sense of normality”, and create cohesion and congruence throughout the organization. Through consistent and predictable compassionate and responsive interactions with adults, as well as opportunities to overcome challenges and to experience successful learning opportunities, children can grow, develop and thrive.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".