Examining the complementarity of ‘children’s rights’ and ‘bioethics’ moral frameworks in pediatric health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has inspired numerous initiatives to recognize children's health-related rights. Whereas children's rights have served as the dominant moral framework for child health concerns in Europe, pediatric bioethics has emerged as the principal framework used in North America. Despite their similarities, these two frameworks differ significantly. Children's rights initiatives tend to be universalist, highlighting substantive standards for all children, while pediatric bioethics has developed norms, models, and procedures for the ethical analysis and management of individual cases. The aim of this article is to critically examine the respective contributions and intersections of children's rights and pediatric bioethics moral frameworks in child health. We describe our collaboration bridging our work with these two frameworks to address pediatric health-care concerns in the Republic of Georgia. We conclude with recommendations for how the complementarity of these two frameworks can be further bridged and promoted internationally.
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 | 0.058 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".