MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2603921160 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxw008

The paediatrician and middle childhood parenting

2017· article· en· W2603921160 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Wong, Jonathan P. Wong, Meta van den Heuvel, Andrea Feller, Justine Silver-Cohen, Susanna Talarico, Joanna Humphreys, Lee Ford-Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenRegional Municipality of NiagaraSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhoodDevelopmental psychologyContext (archaeology)PsychologyMental healthChild developmentQuality of life (healthcare)MedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 'forgotten years' of middle childhood, from age 6 to 12, represent a critical period in child development. Emotional, social and physical development during this time have a lifelong impact on health and adult contributions to society. Mental health conditions have displaced physical illness as the leading childhood disability. Positive parenting can improve child behaviour, prevent early-onset conduct problems and provide a buffer from adverse childhood events resulting in decreased toxic stress and improved health. Medical homes can play a key role in supporting parents with positive parenting skills that are practical, evidence-based and useful in everyday life. Paediatricians need to explore the domains that promote healthy development, including caring environments, fundamental needs and nurturing relationships. Our objective is to promote high-quality positive parenting through middle childhood by identifying opportunities for paediatricians to frame parenting discussions in the context of development, behaviour and safety and to provide access to valuable parenting resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→