MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Children and War: Current Understandings and Future Directions

2001· review· en· W2162189368 on OpenAlexaff
Hélène Berman

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nursing · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeePublic healthCommissionMental healthOppressionFace (sociological concept)PopulationWorld War IIPolitical scienceCriminologyPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineSociologyEnvironmental healthNursingSocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade, the number of children whose lives have been disrupted by war, oppression, terror, and other forms of conflict has grown tremendously. When the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was first established during the 1950s to provide international protection to refugees following World War II, it was estimated that there were 1.5 million refugees and displaced persons. Today there are approximately 14 million, about three-fourths of whom are women and children. Although the experiences of refugee children and adolescents vary considerably, many have witnessed or experienced the death or murder of loved ones. Upon resettlement, they face numerous challenges. Research with this population is a relatively new area of investigation, but there is evidence that many of these young people experience long-term physical and emotional health problems. In this article, current research findings are reviewed, the widespread emphasis in the literature on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is critically examined, future research directions are suggested, and implications for public health nurses are addressed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations136
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NursingSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207