Evidence to support the needs of children and young people: upcoming reviews from the Cochrane Public Health Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) is to inspire and facilitate the generation of evidence relevant to making a difference in population health inequalities, and useful for policy and programme decision-makers. In doing so, it is responsible for the production and publication of systematic reviews of interventions (policies, programmes and initiatives) that are population level in scope and target the social determinants of health, such as food supply and access, employment and the work environment, housing and the built environment. Given the complexity of public health interventions/programmes these reviews consider community involvement and impact, systems, policy, legislation and regulation. CPHG reviews incorporate considerations from public health practice, primary research, knowledge translation and research synthesis in order to provide useful products to promote health, equity and wellbeing. The CPHG is currently working with international author teams to publish and update 37 topics that span social determinants of health and population-level policy priorities (http://ph.cochrane.org/cphg-reviews-and-topics). The purpose of this paper is to highlight two important reviews that are underway. These reviews are similar because they focus on interventions that aim to make a real difference in improving health, social and other outcomes for children and young people. They differ in terms of the social and physical environmental context within which the interventions are based and levels at which they are intended to affect change. Whilst these two reviews comprise policy-relevant questions in populations of interest internationally, the questions also raise significant methodological issues for the consideration of evidence with an equity focus, and ultimately primary research as well.
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 | 0.027 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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".