MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238411173 · doi:10.1093/pch/8.2.65

The future is now

2003· article· en· W4238411173 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Chan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imagine 10 World Trade Centre attacks happening every day, except the victims are children. The number of children that die each day is 10-fold for every person who died on September 11, 2001. Would you allow 10 World Trade Centre attacks to occur every day? What an incredible outcry should occur in response to those deaths. Yet, we remain professionally passive in response to this preventable tragedy. What magic we could weave in this world with the amount of money being spent to fight terrorism. Around 11 million children younger than five years of age will die this year (1). Over 75% of deaths in children are caused by the five ‘big killers’ – measles, pneumonia, malaria, gastroenteritis and perinatal diseases – easily preventable causes of mortality and morbidity (2). Overarching all of these is the spectre of malnutrition and its consequences, and the great new global burden, HIV/AIDS. Simple solutions of less than $6/person/year could prevent 75% of these deaths (3). The cost is no more than $50 billion/year globally, or one-twentieth of the global defense budget (4). It is indeed a drop in the bucket. The problems are not simply ‘over there’. We have international problems at our doorstep. Many children in our Aboriginal and Inuit communities suffer higher mortality and morbidity than those in the rest of Canada. MacMillan et al (5) identify that infant mortality rates for 1986 to 1990 were 16.3 per 1000 live births for Inuit children, 13.8 per 1000 live births for Aboriginal children, while only 7.3 per 1000 live births for all Canadian infants. Conditions in some of these communities rival those of developing countries. Alcohol and drug use, suicide, teenage pregnancies, family violence, and medical problems such as diabetes, obesity, sexually transmitted diseases, infectious diseases, pneumonia and tuberculosis run rampant in our own ‘third-world’ children (5). The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples determined an important link between health promotion and the empowerment of Aboriginal Peoples. We must understand the social, historical and political contexts by which health problems arise. For example, refocusing child protection efforts to increase family support rather than apprehending children by child-welfare authorities proved to be more effective in addressing child health care problems within the Aboriginal community (6). Yet, there has been marginal, if any, progress made in empowering and improving the health and welfare of Aboriginal and Northern populations. Key child health areas need to be addressed. One such area is alcoholism. This single problem leads to fetal alcohol syndrome in children, and parental neglect may lead to solvent abuse in teenagers. We need better techniques to treat children who are affected by alcohol. However, more importantly, we need solutions to treat parents and communities, and to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome. The solutions are not unidimensional. They require commitments within our profession, communities and government, and must address cultural rights, socioeconomic disparities, political grievances and inequitable access to services. First and foremost, we need more data and need to become better informed about the issues that affect disadvantaged children. We need to become aware of why marginalized populations have a worse health status. Is it poverty, education, or are we failing to provide health care services? The paucity of Canadian data leads to poor policy. Second, we need to partner with disadvantaged populations in researching issues and providing the best possible clinical care. Our research should not be ‘voyeuristic’ in nature, but should involve communities in designing, implementating and turning research into practice. In Canada, we should increase funding for training young Aboriginal students in scientific and programmatic research. Initiatives such as Manitoba's Special Premedical Studies Program and the Professional Health Program are models relevant to this issue. Internationally, we must develop training and research capacities with our partners abroad. Alliances such as the Global Forum for Health Research increase our research collaborations with ‘developing’ country partners. Third, we must engage public opinion about the plight of our disadvantaged communities. We have a moral obligation to inform friends, neighbours, churches and media –anyone who will listen – that children are dying and their voices are not being listened to. We should start a fifty-cent per person per day program in Canada, and get government matching to fulfill our United Nations commitment of 0.7% of gross domestic product (Canada provides 0.25% of gross domestic product presently) (7). Canada's role in the global aid budget would be $10 billion, a step toward achieving true global health. Fourth, we must hold our governments accountable for their inaction. Instead of targeting specific programs, the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health has been espousing improvements in funding for basic health care services and relating improvements in health to the economics of countries. The inability of governments in developing nations to provide basic health care service has caused the majority of childhood deaths globally. Similarly, we need to increase the availability and accessibility of resources to our indigenous populations, in terms that Aboriginal Nations can accept. Although funding is around $1.2 billion/year (8), the increased funding has not corresponded with improvements in health. The funding needs to go not only into service provision, but also into research, training and successful community solutions, such as Head Start, targeting our young Aboriginal population. Finally, we need to improve paediatric training to strengthen our capacity to advocate. We need paediatric training to incorporate issues of disadvantaged populations, including such nontraditional topics as economics, politics, international development and cultural sensitivity. Gabriela Mistral, the Chilean Nobel Prize winner once wrote: We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. This is the time his bones are being formed, his mind is being developed. To him, we cannot say ‘tomorrow’, his name is ‘today’.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1730.040

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 head0.328
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207