PROTOCOL: The efficacy of nutritional interventions in reducing childhood/youth aggressive and antisocial behavior: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Campbell systematic review of intervention effectiveness. The goal of this systematic review is to answer the following questions based on the available empirical evidence: Are there nutritional interventions (dietary manipulation, fortification or supplementation) that can reduce excessive aggression towards others in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the three intervention types? Are there nutritional interventions that can reduce antisocial behaviors in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the intervention types? Are there nutritional interventions that can reduce violent offending in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the intervention types? Are there nutritional interventions that can reduce non-violent offending in children/youth? If yes, how strong is their effect and is there a difference among the intervention types? What implementation barriers and solutions to these exist in relation to the above nutritional interventions in children/youth?
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 | 0.068 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.148 | 0.017 |
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".