MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035921476 · doi:10.1177/1477878508091110

Parental Rights: A role-based approach

2008· article· en· W2035921476 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and Research in Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyFoundation (evidence)Scope (computer science)Best interestsSocial psychologyPsychologyConstraint (computer-aided design)Developmental psychologyChild rearingPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both parents and children have strong interests associated with the childrearing process. Children have an interest in being raised in a particular manner, while parents have an interest in parenting in a particular manner. Whose interests should serve as the foundation for childrearing rights? Although parents have an interest in rearing their children as they see fit, no rights follow from that interest. Parental interests generate a right to become a parent, but they do not determine the scope and content of the childrearing rights that attach to this role.The rights that characterize the parental role are grounded solely on the interests of children. While childrearing rights allow parents latitude in interpreting how to parent, and exclude others from intervening, they are limited by the considerable constraint that they cannot undermine their children's future autonomy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.345 · 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