MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poverty, Stress, and Autonomic Reactivity

2012· book-chapter· en· W1898612499 on OpenAlexaff
Abbey Alkon, Brian C. Wolff, W. Thomas Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationPovertyAdverse Childhood ExperiencesContext (archaeology)PsychologyMental healthDevelopmental psychologyAutonomic nervous systemPhysical healthClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceGeographyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter discusses the relations between childhood adversity and autonomic nervous system measures. It begins with a discussion on poverty and adverse experiences early in life and then reviews autonomic nervous system (ANS) measures of children's basal and stress responses, the history of the ANS field, and ANS methodological developments. Two important theories about ANS are discussed: (1) biological embedding and how early experiences can fundamentally alter ANS regulation, and (2) biological sensitivity to context, which explains how children's psychobiological responses differ based on the child's exposure to adversity. Lastly, there is a summary of studies of early childhood on ANS as a mediator or moderator of the relations between poverty-related adverse conditions and mental or physical health. This chapter concludes with a discussion of future directions to address methodological gaps in the literature examining associations among poverty-related stress and adversity, ANS dysregulation, and physical and mental health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207