Bibliographic record
Abstract
Josie, a 15-year-old girl, lived with her mother in a two-bedroom apartment in a medium-size city in upstate New York, fairly close to the Canadian Border. Josie attended high school and was in the ninth grade. Her performance in school was below average and she was frequently absent. On one occasion, when her mother was contacted by the school ocials and questioned about her absences, the mother said that she had to leave for work early in the morning and she just assumed that Josie was attending school. When Josie was questioned about her absences, she stated that she did not like to go to school because the other students teased her about being dumb. Another reason she gave for not attending was that she was frequently teased about being physically well developed. Some older boys asked her to have sex Introduction 79 Identifying Endangered Children 81 Sources of Child Endangerment 82 Denitions of Child Neglect, Abuse, and Endangerment 83 Extent of Child Endangerment 85 e Child Abuse Investigation Process 86 Alleged Child Abuse Cases at Are Substantiated or Unsubstantiated 98 Characteristics of Child Abusers and Victims 107 Perpetrators of Abuse 107 Juvenile Court Processing of Child-Endangering Cases 108 e Criminal Prosecution of Child Abusers 110 Runaways: A Special Category of Endangered Children 111 Missing and Abducted Children 113 Conclusion 114 Court Cases 114 References 115 with them and they had approached her to try to set up meetings with her in secluded places.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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".