MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411593428 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003595

Advancing early childhood development for children with disabilities and the Global Disability Summit 2025

2025· article· en· W4411593428 on OpenAlexaff
Bolajoko O. Olusanya, Olaf Kraus de Camargo, Sheffali Gulati, Shanti Raman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Paediatrics Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, the global health community, represented by 193 UN Member States, committed to ensuring inclusive, high-quality education for children with disabilities under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2015–2030. The SDGs also recognised optimal early childhood development (ECD) as a critical pathway to disability-inclusive education. It was, therefore, imperative to have a robust and globally coordinated disability-focused ECD initiative—one that prioritises early detection and intervention services from birth to 5 years of age—to ensure school readiness and lifelong inclusion for children with developmental delays and disabilities.1–3 UNICEF was rightly designated under the SDGs as the lead custodian UN agency to advance this global vision for children with disabilities. In pursuit of the mantra ‘nothing about us, without us’, the Global Disability Summit (GDS) was launched in 2017 to promote disability inclusion across health, education, social and economic sectors as a fundamental human right (https://www.globaldisabilitysummit.org/). Since its inception, three summits have taken place: in 2018, 2022 and most recently in April 2025. This article examines the progress on ECD by UNICEF for children with disabilities against the backdrop of GDS 2025 and SDGs.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.022
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Paediatrics OpenSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207