Child protection: legal and ethical obligation regarding the report of child abuse in four different countries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child protection is the duty of every single member of the society. Health professionals who work with children, such as members of dental team, are in the unique position to recognize signs of physical, sexual and emotional abuse as well as (dental) neglect. They should report any suspected case where a child is or may be in need of welfare. The professional responsibility is regulated by legal and ethical obligations. In this preliminary work the authors investigate the legal and ethical Acts, and the similarities vs. differences in obligations regarding reporting child abuse and neglect (CAN) cases in four countries: Croatia, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada. In all four countries all health professionals have a duty to report their suspicion if a child is in a harmful situation. All of them who fail to report, or even neglect or delay to report a suspicion, are liable on conviction to a pecuniary fine which varies from country to country. Depending on the country, if a professional has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection, must report to: CAS (children's aid society), to CSS (center for social services), to police, to a Juvenile Court, or to the ombudsman. In all four countries, dentists are not asked to diagnose 'child maltreatment', but simply report the suspicion with supportive evidence. Ethical obligation comes from medical and dental ethical codes regulated by the Chamber or Council of Dentists. In all four countries legal and ethical obligations in reporting CAN are similar. Differences are related mostly to fines for nonreporting or a delay in reporting. Expanded investigation through other European countries and standard operational procedures is needed, in order to harmonize policies and guidelines for reporting CAN and maximize children protection.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".