CRISTINA DÂMBOEANU, comparative assessments related to the proportions of different forms of abuse against children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a comparative analysis of the proportions of the main forms of child abuse in various countries (including Romania). To this end, two distinct approaches were used: 1) the comparison of results of sociological studies on this issue, and 2) the comparison of data included in the reports drafted by the authorities in charge of ensuring the protection of child rights in five countries - the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and Romania. It was shown that, irrespective of the approach, comparative analysis is very limited due to the lack of a standardized definition of the notion of abuse against minors which is used in different countries. On the other hand, no standardized methodologies to approach the phenomenon are used. In the absence of a coordinated and centralized institutional assessment, the comparison of data related to the incidence of cases of abuse against children was carried out at trend level. From this point of view, it was emphasized that in Romania, the proportion of the phenomenon of abuse, especially of specific forms of manifestation of the abuse, is relatively more reduced than in countries that are more developed from an economic point of view, such as the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".