MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280610187 · doi:10.1101/2022.05.08.22274788

10.4 Million Children Affected by COVID-19-associated Orphanhood and Caregiver Death: An Imperative for Action

2022· preprint· en· W4280610187 on OpenAlexaff
Susan D. Hillis, Joel-Pascal Ntwali N’konzi, William Msemburi, Lucie Cluver, Andrés Villaveces, Seth Flaxman, H. Juliette T. Unwin

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PovertyDistressAction (physics)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMental healthSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyEconomic growthDiseaseVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The new WHO estimates for COVID-19 excess deaths allow us to generate supdated and more accurate models of COVID-19 associated orphanhood and caregiver loss. Using methodology established in prior studies, we combine age-specific fertility and excess death estimates from January 2020 to May 2022. We find 10.4 million children have lost a parent or caregiver due to COVID-associated excess deaths, and 7.5 million children have experienced COVID-associated orphanhood. Without supportive intervention, caregiver loss can bring severe risks of poverty, school dropout, sexual exploitation, and mental health distress. It is essential that evidence-based care for these children is integrated into all national response plans as a caring action to protect children from immediate and long-term harms of COVID-19.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→