MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1448884077

The UN Convention as a Basis for Elaborating Rights of Children In Sport

2000· article· en· W1448884077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kristine De Martelaer, Paul De Knop, Marc Theeboom, Lies Van Heddegem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of leisurability · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionHuman rightsTreatyPolitical scienceDeclarationNegotiationLawConvention on the Rights of the ChildConvention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesGeneral assemblyGovernment (linguistics)International human rights lawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More and more, our society is focussing attention on children and youth. Today, there is an increasing number of child related initiatives such as children's news bulletins on television, children's hairdressers, and child friendly holidays. During the 20th century, there has been an evolution from children and youth as an object of protection to a focus on child and youth culture. A central contribution to this evolution has been the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This legal instrument was the product of 10 years of negotiation among government delegations, intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) from every part of the world (Johnson, 1992). The Convention was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly on November 20th, 1989, exactly 30 years after the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and 10 years after the International Year of the Child (Verhellen, 1994). When the Convention entered into force on September 2nd, 1990, more than three quarters of UN member states ratified it. Today, 191 States have ratified this international human rights treaty, with the exception of the United States of America and Somalia (David, 1999a).

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of leisurabilitySame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207