MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403042563 · doi:10.1080/15564886.2024.2408681

Strengths, Barriers, and Recommendations for a Wraparound Gang Intervention Program Targeting High Risk Youth

2024· article· en· W4403042563 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueVictims & Offenders · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Suicide preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyMedicineComputer securityCriminologyForensic engineeringEnvironmental healthPsychiatryEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wraparound approach aims to prevent and interrupt gang activity by “wrapping” youth with individualized supports to increase prosocial connections and reduce the risks for gang involvement. The current study examines 38 interviews with program staff and external stakeholders to assess implementation strengths and challenges of a Wraparound program in British Columbia, Canada. Thematic analysis resulted in seven strengths-related themes concerning program structure, team, and youth engagement strategies, and seven challenge-related themes regarding youth interactions, resources, and communication. Findings highlight the benefits of an individualized approach, with consideration of enhanced communication and outreach strategies, resource allocation, and case manager training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.370 · 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