MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200054490 · doi:10.5430/rwe.v12n4p82

Influence of Parents, Peers and the Public on the Behavior of Street Children in Khartoum, Sudan

2021· article· en· W4200054490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sharifah Muhairah Shahabudin, Najla Abdallah Mohammed, Kuppusamy Singaravelloo

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in World Economy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusIntervention (counseling)StressorPsychologyWelfarePeer pressureDevelopmental psychologySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyMedicineClinical psychologySociologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children living on the streets are a common sight in Khartoum, the capital city of Sudan, and other parts of the country. These children have been exposed to many types of pressure which influence behavior outcomes. This study aims to investigate the street children’s socioeconomic profiles and examine the social-psychological influence of parents, peers and the public on the children’s behavior. A systematic sampling technique was used to select 12 markets in Khartoum state. 350 street children from the 12 markets volunteered for the face-to-face interview administered questionnaire. The study found that parents stressors and peers stressors significantly influence the children to perform maladaptive behavior. However, the public did not have any significant effect on children’s maladaptive behavior. The study suggests intervention programs should be applied to stop children from ending up on the streets by providing families with a basic income to guarantee children's welfare, security and sense of family life. To stop children from going back to the streets, a free education policy, fee waivers and free meals for poor children are recommended.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in World EconomySame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207