MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564047501 · doi:10.1163/15718182-02404003

Whose Foot is in the Tight Shoe?

2016· article· en· W2564047501 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Kitson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Children s Rights · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph-Humber
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsChild protectionChild marriageVulnerability (computing)PovertyPaceChronic povertyPsychological interventionChild rightsPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyHuman rightsLawMedicineDeveloping countryEconomicsNursingComputer securityPoverty reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lack of synergy between existing child marriage prevention initiatives and a systems approach to child protection limits children’s access to holistic services that can help reduce their vulnerability to early marriage. From an integrated feminist and child rights standpoint, culture, religious traditions and poverty do not justify the sexual exploitation of female children, nor fixation on “soft” interventions as a strategy for eradicating child marriage. The slow pace of change in behaviours and attitudes towards child marriage in West Africa necessitates a rethinking of the nuances of community resistance to change, and the implementation of more vigorous actions to ensure just treatment of children. Initiatives to prevent and eradicate child marriage must be cognizant of the strength of multisectoral partnerships and the overarching legal frameworks for the protection of children. State parties need to ensure that the pathways for change reflect the interplay of robust child protection legislations, well-resourced child protection systems, viable local community resources, investments in research on child marriage, and state leadership in holding child marriage perpetrators accountable for their actions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Children s RightsSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207