Mecanismos pessoais e coletivos de proteção e promoção da qualidade de vida para a infância e adolescência
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on recent literature, this paper presents individual and collective strategies for protecting and promoting the quality of life during childhood and adolescence. Addressing the core principles of an all-round protection policy aligned with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Children's and Adolescents' Statute, it also encompasses practical aspects of professional approaches to children and adolescents in terms of ethics and confidentiality. Additionally, it discusses the determining factors that shape the development of individual and collective resilience, on scientific and theoretical bases, in addition to risk factors, health protection and the cognitive and psychosocial development of this segment of the population.The roles played by adults are stressed as protection factors in the macro and micro environments, especially the roles assigned to family members and other adults in the social surroundings such as healthcare practitioners those engaged with education, social welfare and mental health. The important role played by Social Networks is stressed, as a key strategy for implementing inter-disciplinary and trans-sector practices designed to enhance well-being and quality of life throughout the entire community.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".