MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601425302 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.35.3.511

PEINKOFER, James R., <b>SILENCED ANGELS; The Medical. Legal, and Social Aspects of Shaken Baby Syndrome</b>

2004· article· en· W2601425302 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcie Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShaken baby syndromeCriminologySociologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineChild abuseMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PEINKOFER, James R., SILENCED ANGELS; The Medical. Legal, and Social Aspects of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House Publishers, 2002, 291 pp., $44.95 hardcover..This has got to be one of the most distressing and sad books I have ever reviewed. It is dedicated shaken babies past and present: Your silence is heard. The book is an extremely well-written and detailed overview of everything we currently know about SBS or shaken baby syndrome, something which seems difficult to diagnose accurately in every instance and which community members, police and physicians may be reluctant to consider as a diagnosis.The book is divided into three parts and does an in-depth analysis of medical, legal and social aspects of SBS. Under medical aspects, in addition to all of the CT scans and X-ray evidence, the author also includes amazing chapters on the history and evolving understanding of SBS [it has been a long time coming, let me tell you] as well as myths and controversies surrounding the topic, missed cases and the impact on survivors. Under legal aspects, the author looks at the investigation of SBS as well as SIDS vs. SBS. Under social aspects, he provides a fascinating chapter on what we know about the perpetrators, the families of SBS victims, the psychological aspects, government interventions and prevention. The book ends with conclusions and recommendations but also appendices with developmental milestones in babies from birth through twenty-four months, a glossary of terms [needed in the rather more technical medical analysis of this syndrome] and a list of printed and online resources and support groups.SBS is not something that happens by accident as parents play with children; it involves the violent and repetitive shaking of an infant or toddler that causes brain injury and bleeding within the head and the retinas. To give you some sense of proportion about how violent this shaking is, research now shows that a child falling from a third-story window has about a 1% chance of dying while in SBS there is a 25% risk of death. Child abuse is the second leading cause of death in children and SBS is one of the leading causes of child abuse fatalities. A typical SBS case costs at least $100,00 or more in the first year, but more than that, we as a community and as a society should care deeply about the health, well-being, safety and future of all children.SBS is totally preventable and often occurs when several family risk factors are present: being the firstborn child to young parents who do not have adequate parenting skills; being male, since infant boys have a 60% greater risk of being shaken than infant girls; being young; a disruption [such as prematurity and hospitalization after birth] in the normal process from being born to going home; multiple births; any kind of physical impairment or chronic illness; and being unwanted or unaccepted by the new parents.The goal of this book is to save lives and to help bring justice to those who permanently damage and alter the lives of families through a moment of extreme violence. Those who suffer SBS can live with a number of consequences such as attention and balance problems, blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy, death, emotional problems, GI problems, and many different kinds of learning disabilities and mental retardation. …

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207