MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143821781 · doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp069

Populations at risk--paediatrics

2009· article· en· W2143821781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Kollek, Alicja Karwowska

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Protection Dosimetry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioCanadian Association for Co-operative Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessExcellenceMedical emergencyPopulationDisaster preparednessMedicineEmergency managementDisaster planningEnvironmental healthSuicide preventionPoison controlPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disasters affect all segments of the population. Many subsets of the general adult population have specific needs and vulnerabilities. One group with specific needs and which is always at high risk in disasters is children. The physiological, anatomical, developmental and psychological requirements in children differ from those of adults. Disaster planning must recognise and adapt to this. For the past 3 years, the Centre of Excellence in Emergency Preparedness (CEEP) has been developing a document that will outline specific paediatric issues in disasters and provide general (and, where possible, specific) guidelines for Canadian health-care providers and disaster planners. This paper discusses special issues of emergency preparedness for children and reviews the content of the document being developed at CEEP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation Protection DosimetrySame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207