Studying Children's Perspectives on Self‐Determination and Nurturance Rights: Issues and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three decades there has been a growing interest in children's and adolescents' rights and the tendency to grant young people many of the rights traditionally reserved for adult members of society. Increased awareness of children's rights is clearly reflected in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ( CRC; United Nations, 1989 ), which recognizes children as worthy of citizenship and attempts to increase the commitment of nations worldwide to children's rights. If children's rights are to serve their intended function—to protect children from harm and promote their development and well‐being—it is essential to examine how children understand and think about their rights. In this article we review the literature on children's and adults' thinking about children's rights and discuss conceptual and methodological considerations related to this body of research, including the importance of how we conceptualize the construct of children's rights, the types of questions researchers pose about young people's attitudes, knowledge and reasoning regarding children's rights, and the methods used to answer these questions. We address the implications of developmental research on young people's perspectives on children's rights.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".