MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075322869 · doi:10.1080/13623690308409679

Child soldiers and children associated with the fighting forces*

2003· article· en· W2075322869 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah Uppard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine Conflict & Survival · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsHarmPovertyDemobilizationHealth careCriminologyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experience has shown that the breakdown of protective structures such as families and communities, particularly in times of conflict, leaves children vulnerable to recruitment into armed groups. These children are subject to gross violations of their human rights, such as the right to protection from harm, violence and abuse. At least 300,000 children are currently being used to fight in armed conflicts in over 30 countries across the world. Girls and boys are abducted, coerced or persuaded to join armed forces, often in brutal circumstances. These children are usually involved in internal conflicts, where poverty and exclusion leave very few other viable options--becoming soldiers may appear to be their only means of survival. Many, however, sustain physical injuries and permanent disabilities as a result of combat and it is impossible to know how many are killed. A large number encounter health problems such as sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Lack of data on the health of child soldiers means that appropriate medical care and treatment may be inadequate or inaccessible, even during a planned demobilization. There is an urgent need for systematic research and data collection in order to better understand and provide for the healthcare of all children leaving armed groups.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine Conflict & SurvivalSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207