Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the perspectives of secondary school students and staff about the extent to which young people's health rights are catered for at school. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the concept of Health-Promoting Schools encourage the provision of healthy school environments. A postal survey of secondary schools in New Zealand elicited responses from 821 Year 11 (15-16 year olds) students and 438 staff in 107 schools. Most students and staff reported that sources of health advice were available at their schools, but only a minority of students saw these sources as accessible or trustworthy. In every area of health promotion, students saw information and advice as less accessible than staff did. Most staff and students identified mental health problems such as depression as a source of concern in schools, but only a quarter of students (compared to half of staff) thought that this topic was covered during classtime. Students in lower-income schools reported the school environment as slightly less healthy than did students in high-income schools. The paper concludes that schools and policy makers should seek the voices and opinions of young people in order to improve effectiveness in catering for health rights.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".