Teen pregnancy involvement among African, Caribbean and Black adolescent boys and girls: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: African, Caribbean and Black (ACB) adolescents are disproportionately affected by teen pregnancy in North America. Teen pregnancy poses risks to the quality of life of adolescent boys and girls, including physical, psychosocial and socioeconomic risks. Our review aims to explore this public health concern for ACB adolescents within North America. We aim to identify and analyse available evidence on the incidence and prevalence of, associated factors of and interventions to curtail teen pregnancy involvement (TPI) among ACB adolescent boys and girls in North America. This review will explore TPI, rather than teen pregnancy, to ensure a review of men' involvement in teen pregnancy outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Health literature databases such as CINAHL, OVID (Medline and Embase) and CAB direct. Searches will be conducted for evidence published from 2001 to October 2021. Search results will be exported to Covidence for subsequent steps of the review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines will be used to ensure reproducibility and transparency. We will include all study designs focused on ACB boys and girls between 10 and 19 years old, residing in North America. Studies with a mixed racial sample will be included if sample consists of greater than 50% ACB individuals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TPI is a public health concern with socioeconomic and health consequences for ACB teens in North America. A scoping review such as this will provide direction for healthcare practice, policy changes, education and further research in reducing the incidence of TPI in North America. Study results will be disseminated via presentations at conferences, at target populations, communities and organisations and publications via peer-reviewed journals. As knowledge generated from this scoping review will stem from previously published evidence, an ethical approval is not needed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.085 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.013 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".