MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107104665 · doi:10.1177/1746197910370724

Miseducating children about their rights

2010· article· en· W2107104665 on OpenAlexaff
R. Brian Howe, Katherine Covell

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Citizenship and Social Justice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical scienceLinguistic rightsFundamental rightsConvention on the Rights of the ChildInternational human rights lawConventionRight to propertyLawSociologyPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article concerns educating children in schools about their basic rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.The question we address is the teaching of responsibilities.We point out that although there is no mention of children’s responsibilities in the Convention, responsibilities are inherent in the concept of rights. Therefore, children’s rights education requires that children learn responsibilities that go together with rights. But we also point out that although there is a conceptual linkage between rights and responsibilities, effective education requires that the central focus is on rights and that children are given the opportunity to discover for themselves the connection between rights and responsibilities. That teachers unduly focus on responsibilities is miseducation about children’s rights. Our latter discussion is based on our observations of a children’s rights education program in Hampshire, England.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations129
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation Citizenship and Social JusticeSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207