MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158996891 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq017

Commentary: Child Maltreatment and Physical Health: A Call to Action

2010· article· en· W2158996891 on OpenAlexafffund
Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCall to actionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthAction (physics)Suicide preventionInjury preventionPsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsChild abuseMedical emergencyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The preceding section provides new and important information about the link between exposure to one or more types of child maltreatment and impairment that moves the field beyond the association with mental health problems. Despite differences in samples, measurement, and design, the message is consistent across these studies: child maltreatment is associated with a broad range of adverse physical health outcomes, as well as behaviors that increase risk for such outcomes. Using data from the Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS), Topitzes, Mersky, and Reynolds (2010) examined the relationship between official reports of child maltreatment collected prospectively and self-report survey data of tobacco smoking by young adults, taking into account a broad range of mediators. In this sample of socially disadvantaged minority participants, official reports of child maltreatment predicted smoking in young adulthood in both genders. This relationship was mediated by several emotional, social, and cognitive factors in adolescence and young adulthood, as well as by school mobility.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.1370.112
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207