MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180623804 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.35.8/9.01

Editorial – The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect: a partnership

2015· editorial· en· W2180623804 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lil Tonmyr

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild abuseNeglectPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicinePoison controlHumanitiesSuicide preventionPsychiatryEnvironmental healthArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tweet this articleChild maltreatment is a public health issue of great importance.It is also a complex issue to define, identify and respond to.Views differ regarding families' rights to self-determination versus children's rights to protection from harm.Conflicting value systems and perceptions give rise to spirited public and legal debate.Child welfare agencies, mandated to protect children from harm, are criticized for inappropriately interfering in some situations and not intervening quickly enough in others.Although child welfare agencies have the primary task of protecting children from harm in Canada, roles and responsibilities often involve social welfare, health, education, justice and law enforcement personnel.Child welfare legislation is a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, and services are delivered through municipal and/or regional organizations.Child welfare services to First Nations children living on reserve are funded by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, either through First Nations child and family agencies or provincial and territorial governments' services where no First Nations agencies exist.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0230.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207