Situating Children’s Rights in Cultural Perspectives on Childhood: Intermedial Dialogue.
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it