Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is an invitation to re-think how we think about the future of children’s rights. Utopias, science fictions, and the trajectories of history are invoked in futurist imaginings. Utopian thinking across centuries has both marked and marred social interventions into the conduct of childhood. Visionaries from More to Comenius to H.G. Wells have to a greater or lesser extent focused on childhood as means to a utopian end. While utopianism has deeply harmed children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is in some ways indebted to Wells’s imagined World State. The long history of childhood discloses intimations of rights millennia before rights existed. It also discloses how doing good for children often has gone terribly wrong due to failure of the imagination. Science fictions are rapidly becoming fact. Rights thinking has failed to keep pace with developments profoundly affecting children and the conduct of their childhood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".