THE “WHAT’S UP?” SURVEY OF ADOLESCENTS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES DURING THE ISRAEL–HAMAS WAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On October 7, 2023, the Hamas organization launched a surprise terrorist attack, to which Israel responded by declaring war on Hamas. The aim of this study was to examine the status and needs of adolescents in residential care facilities (RCFs) throughout Israel in light of the ongoing war. An additional aim was to show that our survey itself conveyed the message to the adolescents that the professionals and administrative staff of the RCFs are concerned about them. The study relied on a quantitative research approach, using a self-report online survey among adolescents in RCFs; 340 questionnaires were collected. The adolescents reported emotional needs that surfaced because of the war: 58% felt sad or depressed, 50% were worried or stressed, and 49% were angry or irritable. However, 62% reported feeling safe in their RCF. A multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that a feeling on the part of the adolescents that (a) the RCF staff care about their well-being and (b) they listen to and support them are predictors of the adolescents’ sense of security in the RCF. The findings suggest that developing policies aimed at strengthening the connection between RCF staff and the adolescents in their care, and enhancing strategies of partnership, are essential for increasing the adolescents’ sense of security.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".