MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098450906

Commentary

2015· article· en· W7098450906 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPsidium guajava Extracts and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmChild abuseIncidence (geometry)WelfarePoison controlWelfare system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of child maltreatment is in its infancy inCanada. Basic questions about maltreatment arejust beginning to be answered: How many children in Canada suffer abuse or neglect? What kind of maltreat-ment do they suffer? To what extent are they harmed? As physicians, how do we identify and protect children at risk? The Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect, the first national incidence study of child maltreatment,1 found that 2.1 % of children were the subjects of child welfare investigations in 1998. Maltreat-ment was substantiated in 45 % of these cases. This is likely an underestimate of the true incidence of child maltreat-ment because it represents only the cases that were re-ported to and investigated by child welfare authorities. Trocmé and colleagues2 now report the results for phys-ical harm associated with these substantiated cases of child maltreatment. In their study, the cases of maltreatment

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.192 · 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