MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105236613 · doi:10.1136/ebn.8.3.91

Parents of young children used over the counter medication to alleviate symptoms and to change children’s behaviour

2005· letter· en· W2105236613 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl H. Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allotey P, Reidpath DD, Elisha D. “Social medication” and the control of children: a qualitative study of over-the-counter medication among Australian children. Pediatrics 2004;114:e378–83.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q What are the individual and contextual factors and the social processes that support the use of over the counter (OTC) medication in children? Qualitative study. Australia. 40 parents (38 mothers plus 2 partners) who were primary caregivers of children <5 years of age, were mostly middle class, and were in a relationship. 75% of parents had >1 child, and >50% worked or studied part time. Semistructured interviews were used to collect demographic data. Unstructured interviews (duration 2 h) were used to elicit information about the most recent occasion when an OTC medication was given, including details about the course of illness (when applicable), identified symptoms, and contextual factors surrounding OTC medication use. Vitamin or supplement use was not … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.aulast%253DAllotey%26rft.auinit1%253DP.%26rft.volume%253D114%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253De378%26rft.epage%253De383%26rft.atitle%253D%2522Social%2BMedication%2522%2Band%2Bthe%2BControl%2Bof%2BChildren%253A%2BA%2BQualitative%2BStudy%2Bof%2BOver-the-Counter%2BMedication%2BAmong%2BAustralian%2BChildren%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.2004-0759%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15342901%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=pediatrics&resid=114/3/e378&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F91.atom

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicInfant Development and Preterm CareFrench-language works237,207