Perceptions of Service Efficacy Among Young Adults with Childhood Histories of Conduct Problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Services developed to address conduct problems in school contexts show limited efficacy. The current study examined how young adults with childhood histories of conduct problems retrospectively understood service efficacy, inefficacy, and what suggestions they had for service improvement. Participants were 41 young adults from Québec (17-21 years old; 53.7% women; 78% white; 77% below the low-income cut-off for single-person households) who had received services for conduct problems starting in childhood. They completed semi-structured interviews about their service usage experiences. Thematic analysis was used to identify how participants discussed themes relating to efficacy, inefficacy, and service improvement. While considerable overlap was observed in how participants and educational professionals understand efficacy (e.g., reduced symptoms) and inefficacy (e.g., worsening symptoms), participants also noted key differences in terms of how they perceived efficacy (i.e., using services to avoid punishment) that are not generally considered by educational professionals. Including user perspectives when assessing service efficacy and inefficacy can provide crucial insight for improving services for youth with conduct problems, providing a starting point for understanding how users evaluate service success, and how they saw services as influencing their psychosocial outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it