MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6887803833 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/85p4v

The effects of child removal on the mental and physical wellbeing of women in high-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

2020· other· en· W6887803833 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthProtocol (science)Systematic reviewPhysical healthChild healthMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic review protocol for maternal health outcomes associated with child custody loss. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence of health outcomes associated with child removal amongst women in high-income countries. To this end, the proposed systematic review will answer the following questions: 1. What are the physical health outcomes associated with child removal for women? 2. What are the mental health outcomes associated with child removal for women?

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.018
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.010

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science Framework→Same topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→