Child and youth advocacy centres: A change in practice that can change a lifetime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While often a silent and invisible issue, childhood trauma is pervasive, and has profound individual, societal and economic impacts. Many forms of childhood trauma exist, including child physical and sexual abuse. Given the prevalence, impact and availability of prevention and intervention approaches, child abuse deserves the same level of awareness, policy priority and investment as is directed to other issues of significant public health importance. The complex issue of child abuse requires a coordinated multifaceted response, which minimizes system trauma and revictimization for the child and family. The Child and Youth Advocacy Centre (CYAC) model brings together various sectors to create an integrated, multidisciplinary response that is client-centred and trauma-informed. To ensure that all children, youth and their families who have experienced maltreatment have access to the CYAC model of care when needed, sustainable funding investment in CYACs should be a priority for government at all levels.
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 | 0.030 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.013 |
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".