Cognitive-behavioral program for young offenders : by focusing on the peer helping approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluated a newly developed cognitive behavioral program, the Equip \nprogram (Gibbs, Potter & Goldstein, 1995), that focuses on teaching youth to think and act \nresponsibly through a peer helping approach. The 10-week program, which includes \ncomponents of anger management, social skills training and moral development was \nimplemented with a group of moderate to high risk young offenders in a secure custody facility \nin Thunder Bay, Ontario. The Equip program was compared to an alternative cognitive \nbehavioral program currently implemented with young offenders in the Thunder Bay area and a \ncontrol group consisting of youth serving probation sentences in the community and receiving \nminimal intervention. Pre and post measures o f social skills, cognitive distortions and behavioral \noutcomes indicated that relative to the control group. Equip members evidenced significant gains \nin overall levels of social skills and skills involved in dealing with peer pressure. Although no \nbehavioral gains were found, results also revealed clinically significant improvements in \ncognitive distortions for the alternative treatment group, providing support for the use of \ncognitively based programs with young offenders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".