Can coders abstract child maltreatment variables from child welfare administrative data and case narratives for public health surveillance in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health surveillance is essential to inform programs that aim to eradicate child maltreatment (CM) and to provide services to children and families. However, collection of CM data imposes a burden on child welfare workers (CWWs). This study assesses the feasibility of hiring coders to abstract the required information from administrative records and case narratives. METHODS: Based on a convenience sample of child welfare data from Manitoba, Canada, two coders abstracted information on 181 alleged CM cases. The coders completed a short web-based questionnaire for each case to identify which of five types of CM had been investigated, level of substantiation for each type, and risk of future CM. The CWWs responsible for each case completed the same questionnaire. Percentages of the occurrence of CM by the three sources were compared. The validity of the coders' classifications was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, against the CWWs' classifications as the "gold standard." Cohen's kappa was also calculated. RESULTS: The coders' classifications of physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect generally matched those of CWWs; for exposure to intimate partner violence, agreement was weak for one coder. Coding of emotional maltreatment and risk investigations could not be evaluated. CONCLUSION: Results were promising. Abstraction was not time-consuming. Differences between coders and CWWs can be largely explained by the administrative data system, child welfare practice, and legislation. Further investigation is required to determine if additional training could improve coders' classifications of CM.
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 | 0.099 | 0.381 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".