Quand des guides d'entrevue servent à protéger la mémoire des enfants : L'exemple du protocole Nichd
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quand des guides d'entrevue servent à protéger la mémoire des enfants : L'exemple du protocole NICHD Résumé Le signalement des agressions sexuelles, particulièrement chez les jeunes enfants, pose un défi considérable aux intervenants sociaux et aux policiers qui ont à les interroger pour vérifier si les allégations sont véridiques.Dans un tel contexte, la capacité de l'enfant à se souvenir des événements et à produire un récit crédible repose en grande partie sur ses habiletés mnésiques et sur le type de questions qui seront utilisées par l'interviewer.Cet article présente une brève recension des écrits sur la mémoire de l'enfant et illustre de quelle façon le protocole du National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) tente d'intégrer ces recommandations à la pratique.Ces connaissances offrent également une pertinence clinique qui dépasse la seule application au contexte d'entrevue d'investigation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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".