Bibliographic record
Abstract
This themed issue of Child Abuse Review includes a number of articles based on papers presented at the Addressing Filicide: Inaugural International Conference for Cross National Dialogue, held 30-31 May 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.
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 | 0.080 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".