Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, as the Training Director of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Columbia University, I brought a group of psychiatric residents to a local juvenile detention center. What we found was a far cry from the mandate of the Juvenile Court, according to the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 that stated that the court was “to act as kind parents seeking to educate and rehabilitate rather than to punish.” We found that the inmates were principally African-American or Hispanic inner city kids (white youngsters hired lawyers who kept them out of jail, at least until adjudication). These young people were either high school dropouts or far behind their expected level of academic achievement. Two thirds of the adolescents carried at least one psychiatric diagnosis. Rehabilitation and education was definitely not a part of the 1995 picture. Four years later I was elected to the Presidency of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. My first official act was to appoint a task force, headed by Dr. William Arroyo, to study the serious problems inherent in the juvenile justice system and to make recommendations for reform. The monograph resulting from the efforts of a group of dedicated members served as the model for this long-awaited book. The mission of the committee that emerged from the task force states that the juvenile justice system “will become responsive to children and adolescents with mental disorders who are in the juvenile or adult justice system.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.348 | 0.331 |
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".