MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1646993974 · doi:10.1002/car.2328

Filicide: Recasting Research and Intervention

2014· article· en· W1646993974 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Abuse Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2013, at the Monash University Prato Centre within the heart of medieval Prato in Italy.The first of its kind, the conference aimed to bring together researchers, policy experts and service providers (governmental and non-governmental) from different countries to create an opportunity for a cross-country and interdisciplinary dialogue on filicide.A total of 53 delegates attended the conference from Australia, Malaysia, South Africa, Canada, the USA, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, The Netherlands and Austria.The delegates represented the disciplines of social work, psychology, paediatrics, psychiatry, medical general practice, nursing, criminology and law.By focusing on filicide, the conference convenors hoped to offer a critical platform from which to build and expand the existing knowledge base on filicide.Through cross-country comparisons and interdisciplinary knowledge sharing, it was hoped that the conference would contribute to better-aligning research with policy and programme development for the prevention of the tragic deaths of vulnerable children.Following the conference, Peter Sidebotham (2013) took up the challenge in his Child Abuse Review editorial and spoke of the need to advance understanding of filicide beyond the past focus on the classification of perpetrators and their motives.He drew attention to a new conceptual framework for analysis and knowledge building that he and colleagues had designed, a framework that began with the child and their death and radiated out to the family, the perpetrator and the community's service provision (Sidebotham et al., 2011).He noted, as did Professor Frans Koenraadt in his final words at the conference, that filicide is not a uniform social problem.Rather it 'encompasses and overlaps with a heterogeneity of circumstances, characteristics and motives that result in fatal harm to children' (Sidebotham, 2013, p. 305).Moreover, it is one where the presentation and profile vary from one culture and country to another.We suggest that the model proposed by Sidebotham and colleagues be extended further to allow for international comparisons that could lead us back to local solutions.We think the model could be extended by reconceptualising the 'service provision and need' domain as 'needs, social programmes and services', and by adding three more domains, social policies, social conditions and the integration of conditions, policies and programmes, and services (Table 1).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it