Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concepts of both child abuse and child neglect are social constructs that have developed differently in different times and places. Prior to the nineteenth century, very little was written on the subject of child maltreatment. Child abuse and a concern for children generally revolved around issues of the exploitation of children in the workplace. In industrialized countries such as Britain and the United States, this concern was expressed through labor laws. Beginning around 1819, Britain enacted a series of child labor laws meant to protect children (Tuttle 2001). While several states in the US had passed restrictions on child labor in the early 1800s, national regulations would not find their way into law until 1938 (29 USC §203[l] and 29 USC §212). And while these and subsequent laws indicate a growing appreciation for the plight of children in certain parts of the world, they are not indicative of a universal agreement about what constitutes child abuse and neglect. In certain instances, family violence or child abuse is not distinguished from other types of harm, but is covered by charging offenders under the applicable criminal code (e.g., the Canadian Criminal Code). The socially constructed definition of abuse and neglect thus suggests that a fair amount of cultural relativity pervades the issue as not all cultures recognized the same acts or omissions as harmful.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.004 |
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".