MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W343414403 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.4.203

Child poverty. Ways forward for the paediatrician: A comprehensive overview of poverty reduction strategies requiring paediatric support

2015· review· en· W343414403 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suparna Sharma, Elizabeth Ford-Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPsychological interventionPoverty reductionChild povertyEconomic growthMedicineChild healthDevelopment economicsEnvironmental healthEconomicsPediatricsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The harmful effects of child poverty are well documented. Despite this, progress in poverty reduction in Canada has been slow. A significant gap exists between what is known about eradicating poverty and its implementation. Paediatricians can play an important role in bridging this gap by understanding and advancing child poverty reduction. Establishment of a comprehensive national poverty reduction plan is essential to improving progress. The present review identifies the key components of an effective poverty reduction strategy. These elements include effective poverty screening, promoting healthy child development and readiness to learn, ensuring food and housing security, providing extended health care coverage for the uninsured and using place-based solutions and team-level interventions. Specific economic interventions are also reviewed. Addressing the social determinants of health in these ways is crucial to narrowing disparities in wealth and health so that all children in Canada reach their full potential.

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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207