MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248544415 · doi:10.3148/65.1.2004.22

The Use of Growth Charts for Assessing and Monitoring Growth in Canadian Infants and Children

2004· article· en· W4248544415 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsBody mass indexGuidelineMedicineGrowth chartIndex (typography)Health carePopulationFamily medicinePediatricsEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent changes to commonly used growth charts, including the addition of charts for body mass index, have raised questions on which growth charts to use for Canadian children and how to apply body mass index in the paediatric population. This statement, developed collaboratively by key organizations in paediatric health care, is intended for use as a practice guideline for medical practitioners and clinical and community health (public health, home health) professionals. The desired outcome is the provision of recommendations that will promote consistent practices in monitoring growth and assessing atypical patterns of linear growth and weight gain in infants, children and adolescents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207