INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON EARLY DEVELOPMENTAL PREVENTION OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her recent 2010 report to the British Columbia provincial legislature, the Representative for Children and Youth, Judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, reported that the government of this province had failed to implement key provisions of the 2006 Hughes Royal Commission Report (Leyne, 2010). This failure, she asserted, put too many children at risk for abuse – or even death – especially within the most vulnerable families, such as those headed by impoverished, ill-housed, young and/or single mothers with little of the social capital typically needed to raise healthy children within B.C. communities. Further, a recently released federal report stated the Canada had among the highest rates of child poverty among the leading advanced industrial countries (UNICEF, 2010). Finally, while incarceration rates for young offenders in Canada, generally, have dropped substantially during the last decade, those youth in custody disproportionately have been from the above multi-problem families, especially Aboriginal families (e.g., Doob & Cesaroni, 2004).
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.021 |
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".