A Systematic Review of Child Health, Developmental and Educational Outcomes Associated with High Mobility in Indigenous Children from Australia, Canada and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous families tend to move house more often, especially families with young children. However, little is known about the impact of high mobility on children's well-being and development. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship between residential mobility and children's health, developmental, and educational outcomes for Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand Indigenous children (0-12 years). Four databases were investigated with pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search identified 243 articles after independent screening by two authors. Eight studies assessing four child health outcomes were included, six quantitative and two qualitative. Child health outcomes were classified into four broad categories-physical health, social and emotional behavior, learning and development, and developmental risk. The review identified limited evidence; possible links were identified between high mobility and emotional and behavioral difficulties for younger children. One study identified evidence of a linear relationship between the number of houses a child has lived in since birth and developmental risk. Further research is needed to fully understand the impact of high residential mobility for Indigenous children at different developmental stages. Prioritizing the involvement, collaboration, and empowerment of Indigenous communities and leadership is critical for future research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".