MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031879667 · doi:10.1016/j.phf.2013.12.007

Psychische Schutzfaktoren bei Kindern

2014· article· de· W2031879667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raimund Geene

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Forum · 2014
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Einleitung In den Kindheitswissenschaften ist eine Ausrichtung auf Schutzfaktoren/Ressourcen breit konsentiert. Etablierte psychologische Ressourcenkonzepte sind jedoch weitgehend personalisiert und mithin für Kinder nur eingeschränkt anwendbar. Umfassende Konzepte wie der Capability Approach ergänzen sich mit dem Setting-Ansatz in Kitas und Schulen. Der Kommune kann dabei die Rolle eines Dach-Settings zukommen, insbesondere Übergängen/Präventionsketten. Familien bedürfen einer anderen Interventionslogik nach Maßgabe der Kernstrategien der Ottawa-Charta, wie es im neuen Handlungsfeld der Frühen Hilfen entwickelt wird.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health ForumSame topicHealth and Medical StudiesFrench-language works237,207