Adolescent medicine in Canada: A positive step for paediatricians and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O ur most important goal in preparing this issue of Paediatrics & Child Health, which is dedicated to the second decade of life, was to avoid the onslaught of negative themes that so often accompany both the public media and the medical literature when issues of adolescence are addressed.The article by Saewyc and Tonkin (pages 43-47) is dedicated to this very idea.In reading this paper, it is heartening to hear that most teens are content and well adjusted, do not get pregnant or use drugs, feel connected to family and community, and go on to lead selfsufficient lives.We read that teenagers are hopeful and optimistic, and are generally not involved in behaviours that put their health in jeopardy.The 'paradigm shift' discussed by the authors proposes that we move away from identifying risk in teens, and instead, identify protective factors and resilience in our clinical work.This shift is vital to the future of Canada's teens, and as paediatricians and health care professionals, we can lead the way to changing the prevalent focus on the negative and redirect our energies to identifying the strengths of the youth we care for.Our second goal in preparing this issue was to focus on topics that would be of use and interest to clinicians.Therefore, the articles and statements included deal with topics we see everyday in our clinics, hospitals and emergency rooms.Some of the topics deal with a presenting symptom such as fatigue, adherence, sexuality or drug use, while others are related to a patient population such as teen boys or hospitalized youth.Improving our communication with teens is the focus in the commentary by and the Canadian Paediatric Society's statement on harm reduction (pages 53-56), which discusses the principles of engaging youth in reducing negative health outcomes.All of these papers are intended to present an approach to understanding and intervening with youth to improve well being.These articles also demonstrate the diversity of topics seen by adolescent medicine specialists, and the diversity of activities they engage in, such as clinical care, conducting and interpreting research, and advocating for Canadian youth.Although no overriding 'theme' was intended for these articles, we saw that one did emerge: dialogue.In this issue, the authors emphasize that the ability of health care professionals to dialogue with teens and their families is paramount; irrespective of the teen's reason for visiting the doctor.We learn that dialoguing with teens is very different from interviewing teens.When we dialogue, we listen in a different way, we try to engage the teen more in the interview and we pause to provide some feedback along the way.Techniques such as motivational interviewing and active listening are becoming expected tools
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".