MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392469063 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014901

Are adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) the root cause of the Aboriginal health gap in Australia?

2024· article· en· W4392469063 on OpenAlexaff
Subash Thapa, Peter Gibbs, Nancy Ross, Jamie E. Newman, Julaine Allan, Hazel Dalton, Shakeel Mahmood, Bernd H. Kalinna, Allen G. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse Childhood ExperiencesPublic healthEnvironmental healthRoot causeMedicinePsychiatryNursingMental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

⇒ Indigenous Australians face a two-fold likelihood of experiencing multiple adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) including neglect, physical, emotional and sexual abuse compared with the general Australian population.⇒ The higher rate of ACEs among Indigenous Australians has consequentially led to the early diagnosis of chronic illnesses (eg, type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke), mental health issues (eg, anxiety, depression, suicide) and early death.⇒ Strength-based approaches, which involve codesigned and Indigenous-led primary prevention programmes, as well as integrative ACE screening and treatment, will not only improve long-term public health outcomes but will also reduce healthcare costs and help close the Health Gap.⇒ We believe ACEs are the root cause of the Aboriginal health gap in Australia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.400 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207