CARING FOR ALL CHILDREN: ROLE OF GLOBAL COMMUNITY OF PAEDIATRIC CLINICIANS AND RESEARCHERS IN ADDRESSING CHILDREN’S NEEDS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year millions of children die from disease, nutritional deficiency, environmental pollutants and war. Millions more survive unable to develop to their full physical, intellectual and psychological potential. The vast majority of these children are in developing countries. Most major paediatric scientific meetings and publications do not focus on the health of these children. Although many individuals and groups do study and care for children in developing regions, they are few compared with the number focused on the care and study of children in high-income countries. The programme for global paediatric research (PGPR) encourages global paediatric research interest and resource investment in global child health. PGPR holds symposia and workshops throughout the world to educate researchers, draw them together to share ideas, determine research agendas and begin collaborations. Such sessions have been held in Thailand and China and are conducted each year at the Pediatric Academic Societies’ annual meeting. PGPR also publishes information for use by researchers, government and non-government agencies and links organisations and individuals together to ensure that key research takes place. The health of the world’s most vulnerable children needs to be addressed by more paediatric researchers and clinicians, more scientific meetings and more publications. There is much opportunity and need for leadership and organised efforts by individuals within the global paediatric community and by the increased involvement and commitment of paediatric organisations throughout the world.
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 | 0.055 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".