MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793848863 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx160

La prévention des blessures par balle chez les jeunes Canadiens

2018· article· fr· W2793848863 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Austin, Margo Lane

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les blessures par balle sont une cause importante et évitable de décès chez les jeunes Canadiens. Les adolescents et les jeunes adultes de sexe masculin sont beaucoup plus touchés, mais des jeunes de tout âge meurent par balle. Le taux de possession d’armes à feu est plus faible au Canada qu’aux États-Unis, mais il est supérieur à celui de nombreux autres pays à revenu élevé. Chez les jeunes, la présence d’armes à feu est un facteur important de suicide à l’adolescence, de décès accidentel par balle, d’homicide par les gangs et de fusillade dans les écoles. Les armes à feu ne devraient pas être conservées dans des domiciles ou des milieux où des enfants et des adolescents habitent ou jouent. Les questions sur la présence d’armes à feu au domicile d’un adolescent dépressif ou suicidaire constituent un aspect essentiel de l’évaluation de sa sécurité, et dans un tel cas, il faut recommander de retirer les armes à feu de son milieu. Des mesures législatives pour assurer un contrôle rigoureux de l’acquisition, du transport, de la possession et de l’entreposage d’armes à feu et pour en réduire le trafic sont également recommandées.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207