MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067111009

La prévention des blessures non intentionnelles chez les enfants et adolescents autochtones au Canada

2012· article· fr· W7067111009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldChemistry
TopicCoconut Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Child abuseChild custodyPoison controlForensic genetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les blessures non intentionnelles sont la principale cause de décès chez les enfants et adolescents autochtones canadiens, à un taux de trois à quatre fois la moyenne nationale. Non seulement les décès et les blessures invalidantes dévastent les familles et les communautés, mais elles font également d’énormes ravages sur les ressources de santé. L’absence de statistiques, de surveillance continue ou de programmes de prévention des blessures à l’égard des enfants et adolescents autochtones exacerbe les coûts en matière de main-d’œuvre et de santé. Les communautés autochtones sont hétérogènes sur le plan culturel, qu’il s’agisse de l’accès aux ressources ou même des risques et des types de blessures. Pourtant, en général, ces communautés sont beaucoup plus susceptibles d’être pauvres, d’habiter dans un logement insalubre et d’éprouver de la difficulté à accéder aux soins de santé, des facteurs qui accroissent le risque et les conséquences des blessures. Il existe un besoin urgent de surveillance des blessures, de recherche, de renforcement des capacités, de diffusion des connaissances et de programmes de prévention des blessures qui sont axés sur les populations autochtones. Pour prévenir les blessures de manière efficace, il faut adopter des démarches multidisciplinaires, coopératives et durables, fondées sur des pratiques exemplaires, tout en étant spécifiques et sensibles sur le plan culturel et linguistique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicCoconut Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207