[Delinquent adolescents: health problems and health care guidelines for juvenile correctional facilities].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article was to provide an update that would serve to increase knowledge of health problems among juvenile delinquents before and during incarceration in juvenile correctional centers. Recommendations are made for the care of mental and physical health and for the health education of these teenagers that could be useful for health professionals providing health care to these teenagers while in custody as well as for those seeing them in the ambulatory setting. From the literature consulted, 63 % of studies have been performed in the United States, 24 % in Western Europe (Spain, United Kingdom, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Finland), 8 % in Australia and 5 % in Canada. These studies show no appreciable qualitative differences in the health problems most frequently presented by these teenagers and there is agreement that the areas that should be prioritized are the provision of preventive and/or therapeutic dental care, as well as programs for psychiatric care, immunization, infectious diseases and health education. Failure to identify the health requirements of these teenagers and to provide early interventions can not only adversely effect their quality of life and their future physical, emotional and intellectual development but can also make their rehabilitation and reintegration into society more difficult.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".