Evaluation of the London (Ontario) Community Group Treatment Programme for Children Who Have Witnessed Woman Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY. Group intervention for children exposed to woman abuse is increasingly used to respond to the psychological needs of children exposed to woman abuse. This article describes a community group model of intervention for children exposed to woman abuse, and an evaluation approach used to assess the impact of such groups. The collaborative development of questionnaire/interview evaluation instruments for this purpose is described, and the set of instruments is pre 128 sented in its entirety. The main instrument, entitled Child/Teen Witness to Woman Abuse Questionnaire, was tailored to the content of the groups and covers topics such as definitions and understanding of abuse, safety skills, beliefs and attitudes about abuse, perceived responsibility for abuse, alternatives to violence, non-violent conflict resolution strategies, and help seeking skills. Both closed-ended and open-ended questions are employed. Separate questionnaires assess consumer (mother/caregiver and child) satisfaction and feedback. The results of a study evaluating the groups are described, which showed good changes from pre to post intervention, as well as a high degree of satisfaction among children and mothers with regard to the groups. Feedback from children and mothers as to suggested improvements in the group is also described. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com https://www.haworthpressinc.com >]
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".