Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence constitutes a major transition for extremely low birth weight (ELBW) teenagers. Recent studies of ELBW teenagers born in the 1980s have provided information about the growth and developmental characteristics of these individuals in adolescence and in early adulthood. ELBW teenagers are shorter and lighter than their full-term peers, and have a smaller head circumference. Cognitive and academic vulnerabilities documented during the school years, particularly difficulties with nonverbal intelligence and arithmetic, persist into late adolescence. Many ELBW children struggle in school and have lower academic achievement levels. The self-concept of ELBW teenagers is generally similar to that of their full-term peers, but their parents perceive them to be more vulnerable over a wide range of behavioural and psychosocial dimensions, particularly depression and attention. ELBW teenagers perceive themselves as needing more assistance in job seeking than do their peers. Physical activity levels and fitness in late adolescence are significantly lower in ELBW teenagers than in their full-term peers, constituting a potential additional health hazard in later life. The outcomes of ELBW teenagers are significantly influenced by socioeconomic, family and parenting factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".