Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is based upon a request from the Panel of Accreditation to evaluate the\nprogramme “National Substance Abuse Programme” (NSAP), which originated in\nCanada. The report will give a better foundation for evaluating whether the programme\nshould be furthered after the period of the pilot project. It will also contribute to casting\nlight on some of the problems connected with carrying out the programme, which in\nturn might support possible changes or improvements.\nNSAP is a cognitive behavioural programme intended to replace the former programmes\n“Offender Substance Abuse Programme” (OSAPP) and the substance abuse programme\nin Probation named “Choices”, which both dealt with problematic behaviour related to\nintoxication. All three programmes are Norwegian versions of Canadian programmes\nused in cooperation with the Correctional Service in Canada, CSC.\nAt the Panel of Accreditation’s request, the differences between NSAP and OSAPP are\nreviewed in this report. The pilot units assessed in this evaluation are the prisons of Ila,\nRingerike, Oslo, Ravneberget, Bergen, Stavanger and Bodø, as well as the probation\noffices in Oslo and Østfold. The probation office in Oslo is represented by one\nparticipant in the interview survey.\nThis report consists of four main parts: (1) Introduction to the programme and the\nreport, (2) the user’s experiences with NSAP, (3) evaluation of pre- and post-tests and\n(4) discussion and recommendations with regards to accrediting the programme.\nChapter 2, on the user’s experiences with NSAP, is written by Åse-Bente Rustad on\nbehalf of the Centre for Research and Education in Forensic Psychiatry in the south-east\nregional health service. The other chapters and recommendations are written by Per\nKristian Granheim in collaboration with Tore Rokkan, both employed at the Correctional\nService of Norway staff Academy (KRUS).
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.519 | 0.295 |
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".