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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the nature of the relationship between research ethics and children's rights by examining the historical origins of both concepts and then analysing several contemporary research ethics guidelines from a rights-based perspective. The analysis demonstrates that while many research ethics guidelines may contain references to human rights principles, implicit or otherwise, there is often a lack definition about what is meant by ‘rights’ and about the correlation between human rights principles and research ethics in practice. Within social sciences research, in particular, research ethics guidelines, including those guidelines specific to child research, noticeably lack direct reference to human rights principles such as those articulated within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The paper argues that as child researchers do not stand apart from their obligations to protect and promote children's rights, research ethics guidelines relied upon by child researchers need to be informed by human rights principles and that those researchers may draw upon the UNCRC, in particular, to inform their consideration of inevitable ethical dilemmas arising within child research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it