Conceptualising the child through an ‘ethic of care’: lessons for family law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I critically analyse the two historical models for conceptualising the child: the protectionist model and the children’s rights model. I argue that both models are inappropriate ways in which to conceptualise the child. Protectionism is paternalistic, essentialises the child, and denies the child a voice. Equally problematic, the children’s rights model presumes the social desirability of the liberal individual, and emphasises rights over relationships, and universal principles over concrete situations. Given the flaws inherent in these models, I propose a third way in which to conceptualise the child based on a feminist ‘ethic of care’. Drawing on the work of proponents of an ethic of care, I consider how the ethic might conceptualise the child, and how it might translate into a family law context.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".