MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Promoting and protecting the health of children and young people

2004· review· en· W2008408625 on OpenAlex
Kirsty Licence

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 Care Health and Development · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth promotionPromotion (chess)Mental healthMedicineEnforcementPsychologyOccupational safety and healthLegislationGerontologyNursingEnvironmental healthPublic healthPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The health-related behaviours adopted by children and young people can have both immediate and long-term health effects. Health promotion interventions that target children and young people can lay the foundations of a healthy lifestyle that may be sustained into adulthood. This paper is based on a selective review of evidence relating to health promotion in childhood, carried out to support the external working group on the 'Healthy Child' module of the Children's National Service Framework. METHODS: This is a selective review of mainly secondary research. It focuses on injury prevention, support for parenting and the promotion of good mental health, and promoting a healthy diet and physical activity amongst children and young people. FINDINGS: In many areas, the quality of primary research into health promotion interventions aimed at children and young people is poor. Interventions are heterogeneous and not described in sufficient detail. Sample sizes tend to be small, and there are commonly problems of bias. Despite these difficulties, there is good evidence for a range of interventions, including (1) area road safety schemes; (2) combining a variety of approaches to the promotion of the use of safety equipment, including legislation and enforcement, loan/assisted purchase/giveaway schemes, education, fitting and maintenance of safety equipment; (3) school-based mental health promotion; (4) parenting support; (5) interventions that promote and facilitate 'lifestyle' activity for children, such as walking and cycling to school, and those that aim to reduce sedentary behaviours such as parent education to reduce the time children spend watching TV and using computers; and (6) controlling advertising of unhealthy food that is aimed at children. CONCLUSIONS: There are effective interventions to promote and protect the health of children and young people that require action across the five areas described in the Ottawa Charter. Health, social care and education services have a direct role in the delivery of many of these interventions and, in other areas, a role in collaborative work with other agencies, in lobbying for policy change and in raising the profile of child health promotion. Further research is needed using larger study populations, and closely defined interventions, both targeted and universal, in order to fill some of the current gaps in the evidence base for health promotion in children and young people.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.373 · 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