Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Canadian children must cope with unduly negative life experiences, such as racial and ethnic prejudice, severe learning and behavior problems, inadequate parenting, family violence, and poverty. These children are vulnerable. They are children whose chances of leading healthy and productive lives are somewhat reduced unless there is a concerted and prolonged effort to intervene on their behalf. In 1994, Human Resources Development Canada, in cooperation with Statistics Canada, launched the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY), a study of a nationally representative sample of over 20,000 Canadian children and their families. When the NLSCY data became available, I had the opportunity to work with scholars from across Canada in analysing the data to examine several questions concerning childhood vulnerability: How many children in Canada can be considered vulnerable? Where do the majority of them reside? Can we help them meet the difficult challenges they face, thereby significantly improving the quality of their lives? Can we provide avenues for success, so that more children will lead healthy, productive lives? Can we identify schools and local communities that are particularly successful in improving the life chances of vulnerable children, and determine what it is that they are doing differently? We brought the research findings together in an edited volume entitled, Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada’s National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth which was published this spring by University of Alberta Press. A difficult task in this work was to define “vulnerable children”. The term “vulnerable” connotes susceptibility – that one is exposed, or liable to experience some undesirable life outcome in the future. Our definition was based on children’s cognitive and behavioural outcomes, rather than on “risk factors” that predict negative life outcomes. A child was considered vulnerable in the cognitive domain if he or she had a low score on a standardized test of motor and social development at ages 0 to 3, a low score on a test of receptive vocabulary at ages 4 and 5, or a low score on a standardized mathematics test at ages 6 to 11. Children were considered vulnerable in Vulnerable children and youth
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.005 |
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".