Humanitarian paediatrics: A statement of purpose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From pandemics to war, from climate change to disasters-in humanitarian settings, children bear a disproportionate burden.Half of all deaths among children under five years occur in such settings [1].Globally, one in six children-approximately 450 million-lived in a conflict zone in 2020 [2].In 2021, children represented 41% of displaced people despite only comprising 30% of the population [3].Yet, for children, the humanitarian machinery is ill-fit for purpose.Humanitarian settings often suffer from protracted violence and political and economic instability, which in turn disrupts primary care and public health services such as childhood vaccination and antenatal care.Conflict-affected countries have higher neonatal and child mortality rates, and surviving children are at risk for physical, psychological, developmental, and intergenerational consequences from early trauma [4].The increasingly protracted nature of conflict and prolonged displacement compound these burdens.Climate change exacerbates the frequency and intensity of extreme weather-driven disasters and emerging pandemics with catastrophic humanitarian challenges that disproportionately affect children [5]. A new vision: Humanitarian paediatricsDespite devastating short-and long-term health and developmental consequences for children affected by crises, the humanitarian system fails to live up to their needs.The global community of professionals working in humanitarian settings lacks consensus on priorities, resource requirements, and training gaps.Our collective response to children's needs has been inadequate both by dimension and competence.This discussion aims to elevate the distinct and unmet needs of children and adolescents in humanitarian settings and to propose that these needs can best be met by the purposeful development of a new field: humanitarian paediatrics.We consider the need for a distinct field of humanitarian paediatrics to be profound.The justification for developing the field is based on the constraints of "global child health" and "humanitarian health."Global child health is broad and unspecific and, so far, has failed to adequately address the requirements of operating in humanitarian contexts.Similarly,
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 | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.039 |
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".