Bibliographic record
Abstract
InvestIng In the health of ChIldren "no child should be deprived access to healthcare... and the right to play" -United Nations' convention on the rights of the child Healthcare Quarterly Vol.15 Special Issue July 2012 15 C hildren's right to health includes healthy living conditions as well as healthcare.For this reason, article 24 and related articles in the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) could provide a useful balance for the overemphasis on clinical medicine in Canada's health system -that is, if we take children's right to health seriously.In general, article 24 recognizes that every child has a right to the "highest attainable standard of health."Particular elements named in the article (see sidebar) illustrate the wide scope, from nutrition and clean water to environmental pollution, the prevention of accidents, access to health knowledge and ending traditional practices that threaten health.With regard to healthcare, article 24 states that no child should be deprived of access to healthcare services for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.Other provisions in the convention reflect aspects of the social determinants of health, such as freedom from violence and exploitation, the right to education and the right to play.All of these are tied together by the basic principles of non-discrimination, giving priority to the best interests of the child, child participation and realizing the full potential of every child.The convention, which applies to all children under the age of 18 years, provides an integrated framework for promoting children's health.It converges with findings from research into the social determinants of health for child development (British Medical Association 2011; National Scientific Council on the Developing Child et al. 2010).The benefits of a rights-based approach to children's health include the following:Children's
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 | 0.037 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".