MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337751995 · doi:10.1177/070674370004500802

Child Maltreatment: What We Know in the Year 2000

2000· review· en· W2337751995 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthPsychologyMedical emergencyChild abuseMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an overview of child maltreatment within a public health framework, based on the Closing Plenary Address presented at the 1999 Joint Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Canadian Academy of Child Psychiatry. A brief historical perspective is followed by a discussion of the burden of suffering associated with child maltreatment. Evidence about the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect is reviewed. Evidence supports a program of nurse home visits as effective in preventing abuse and neglect among first-time, at-risk mothers. Sexual abuse education programs improve children's knowledge and prevention skills; whether such programs reduce the occurrence of child sexual abuse remains to be established. In the area of treatment, therapeutic day-care programs improve cognitive skills among physically abused and neglected children. Abuse-specific cognitive-behaviour therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing symptoms among sexually abused children in both preschool and older age groups. Further research is necessary across all subcategories of child maltreatment, particularly neglect and emotional abuse.

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)0.003
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations51
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207