MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991472917 · doi:10.22215/cjcr.v4i1.89

A Child Rights Perspective on Intergenerational Trauma

2017· article· en· W2991472917 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brent Bezo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on the Rights of the ChildPovertyPerspective (graphical)Child abuseHuman rightsPoliticsBest interestsChild rightsConventionSociologyPolitical scienceCriminologyLawPoison controlSuicide preventionMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that intergenerational trauma undermines the rights of the child, as per articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. To meet this objective, this paper draws on the available evidence suggesting that intergenerational trauma deprives children of their rights to environments free of maltreatment-abuse (Articles 19), and poverty (Article 27), in addition to undermining their rights to their own culture (Article 30). This paper then draws on available intergenerational trauma research, suggesting that child maltreatment-abuse, poverty, and loss of culture prevent the child from obtaining the best possible health, with the latter also a right outlined in Article 24. Because this paper argues that the study of intergenerational trauma owes its existence to political movements, recommendations are made for researcher engagement in multisectorial child-centric research initiatives, in order to help realize children’s rights that are undermined by intergenerational trauma and improve children’s health.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfantsSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207