MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086820009 · doi:10.1163/157181810x537391

The Best Interests of the Child Principle: Literal Analysis and Function

2010· article· en· W2086820009 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Zermatten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Children s Rights · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Child Rights and Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionLiteral (mathematical logic)Convention on the Rights of the ChildLawPoliticsSubject (documents)Element (criminal law)Function (biology)Political scienceSociologyEpistemologyLaw and economicsHuman rightsComputer sciencePhilosophyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Best Interests of the Child principle is an innovative concept introduced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It serves as a foundational element of the Convention and has been identified by the Committee on the Rights of the Child as one of the Convention's four general principles. Despite limited historical references to this idea in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this is a distinctly contemporary legal concept. As a result, its content and functionality has been the subject of thorough academic study as well as systematic examination and elaboration in jurisprudential settings. The paper makes a significant contribution to this interpretive dialogue by providing a conceptual and literal analysis of the principle, including as it relates to other articles of the Convention. The political dimensions of the principle are also considered with a view to its practical implementation at the national level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.052
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Children s RightsSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207