Situating Children’s Rights in Cultural Perspectives on Childhood: Intermedial Dialogue.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Against the backdrop of the recent 25th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, this article proposes the use of an analytical approach that enables inquiry into and responsiveness to varied cultural perspectives on the meaning of “children” and “childhood” in the context of children’s rights. This method of inquiry, which we call “intermedial dialogue,” assesses conceptual convergence and divergence between stakeholders and facilitates the creation of common ground across different cultural and contextual perspectives. The article begins with a discussion of the limits of the current discourse of children’s rights. Cultural conceptualizations of “children” and “childhood” are introduced to show variation and the significance of context. We then present “intermedial dialogue,” which is both a method and an epistemological stance that integrates the views of those referred to as children, young people under the age of 18, in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
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 | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".