An Evaluation of Yukon's Community Wellness Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Yukon Community Wellness Court (CWC) is a therapeutic court model that is designed to work with offenders to address the underlying, root causes of their offending behaviour. The Court was established in May 2007 as a response to the recognition that a substantial proportion of offenders in the Yukon have underlying issues related to wellness such as alcohol and drug addictions, mental health problems, or Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). This report presents results of a comprehensive process and summative outcome evaluation analysis designed to monitor and test the effectiveness of the CWC. More specifically, the evaluation objectives were as follows: (1) to identify whether the Community Wellness Court and program continues to be implemented as planned; and (2) to determine the effectiveness of the Community Wellness Court process and program at achieving their objectives. Methodology A comprehensive process and summative outcome evaluation analysis was designed to monitor and test the effectiveness of the CWC. The process analysis examined how the CWC has been implemented and answered the question of whether the program was carried out as it was intended. The outcome analysis included a measurement of short and long-term outcomes to determine whether the program had its intended effect in achieving specific program objectives. The outcome analysis used a retrospective longitudinal pretest-posttest design with non-equivalent comparison groups (i.e., those who dropped out or were removed from the program without completing it). As the literature review indicates, evaluating problem-solving courts is difficult due to the inherent limitations including: the voluntary nature of the program; the complexity of the program (i.e., every client is subject to a unique combination of program activities); time in the program may vary considerably by individual clients; and the client group can be difficult due to their complex etiologies. This study was also affected by these limitations.
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 | 0.027 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".