Rethinking Child Protection in Emergencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The humanitarian system is struggling to adapt to changes in the global political environment, trends in armed conflict and displacement, and advances in science and technology. In recent years, the international community has undertaken a number of efforts to overcome these challenges, such as the Agenda for Humanity, a plan that outlines the changes needed to alleviate suffering, reduce risk, and lessen vulnerability on a global scale. This article reviews recent evidence from a range of disciplines to inform these efforts, especially as they relate to the protection of children. Early childhood and adolescence constitute two critical periods of child development that lay the foundations for future health and wellbeing. Exposure to adversity in crisis contexts can compromise this development, with potentially life-long consequences. Evidence suggests that relationships with caregivers and peers play a central role in mediating childhood experiences of adversity. Unfortunately, interventions for children affected by crises are usually too fragmented to maximize the protective effects of healthy relationships. This article stresses the importance of developing multisectoral and relational interventions capable of promoting healthy development across the life course. Given the central role of caregivers, the household is an especially powerful level of intervention for combining approaches from different sectors. More concerted efforts are needed to develop household interventions that combine traditional sectoral approaches with innovative, cross-cutting measures, such as cash transfers and parental support. Household interventions should also be an integral part of broader community and society level actions, which together form more comprehensive systems of care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".