Care and Protection against Child Abuse: With Special Reference to Malaysia Child Act 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All children have the right to live in an environment free from abuse and neglect. The safety of children is the paramount concern that must guide child protection efforts. It is in this context that reference of this paper will be made to The Child Act 2001, the key outcome of Malaysia’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) which forms part of the protective legal environment for children in the country. Initiatives have been introduced under this Act to safeguard children from abuse, neglect and violence such as incest which has been criminalized by the Penal Code and the Domestic Violence Act which protects the child against violence within family. This Act was introduced to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the care, protection and rehabilitation of children. With the Act beforehand, numbers of child abuse cases are still alarming. Therefore, this article is an attempt to give an overview of care and protection provided under the Child Act 2001 towards children who are being the victims of abuse. The main purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent of the protection and care given under the Act to safeguard the children in the social justice system in Malaysia. At the end of the paper some areas are identified for further improvement and future amendment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".