Toward a nuanced assessment of the role of intensive home visiting in improving outcomes for families: commentary on Catherine <i>et al</i> . (2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families' experiences during the transition to parenthood and early childhood profoundly shape the lifetime trajectory of both parents and children, laying the foundation for societal inequities. Intensive home visiting programs, which aim to provide in-home support to socio-economically vulnerable parents during the transition to parenthood, are a prominent policy across the globe to provide support to less-resourced families. In this issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry, in their article titled 'Effectiveness of nurse-home visiting in improving child and maternal outcomes prenatally to age two years: A randomised controlled trial (British Columbia Healthy Connections Project)', Catherine et al. provide evidence from a randomized controlled trial of the impact of the Nurse-Family Partnership in Canada on child injury, language and behavior and birth spacing outcomes. This commentary discusses the paper's contribution and reflects on opportunities and challenges in building a nuanced understanding of the evidence-base supporting intensive home visiting programs.
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 | 0.030 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.060 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".