The Prevention of Child Physical Abuse and Neglect: An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed research that has evaluated prevention programs for child abuse and neglect. A few universal educational and parenting programs (e.g., abusive head trauma educational programs, enhanced pediatric care interventions) have been found to be effective. Moreover, a few selective home visitation programs (e.g., the Nurse-Family Partnership program), have shown evidence that they can prevent child abuse and neglect. As well, there is some evidence that multi-component programs are successful. Finally, the research on the importance of program length and intensity as a moderator of program effectiveness is mixed. While the evidence base of effective prevention programs for child abuse and neglect is growing, current interventions are more likely to be program-focused than policy-focused, selective than universal, ameliorative than transformative, and directed at the micro-level than the macro-level. Unless prevention programs are accompanied by social policies that have an agenda of social justice, poverty reduction, and community capacity-building, their potential to prevent child abuse will be seriously challenged.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".