Child Rights As Perceived by the Community Members in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attitudes, knowledge, and perceptions of an individual influence their behavior as well as culture of a society. The objective of the study was to understand the attitudes and knowledge of 584 Indian community members regarding child rights and their perceptions about whether selected child rights were secured in reality. Overall attitudes of vast majority (96 – 98%) of the participants towards child rights were found to be positive i.e., children should have rights in various respects except issue like right to meet others (Article 15 of CRC). Knowledge of majority of the participants about child rights related legislations was moderate and varied across the cities while participants were unanimous about poor lived experiences of child rights in reality. So far as attitude and perception are concerned about child rights, there was a significant difference in the distribution between cities (p<0.01). Overall, the Rights of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 had the highest awareness (91.3%, n=533), followed by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (89.7%, n=523) and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (89.6%, n=523). Findings of the present study speak in favor of community awareness about child rights and penalties for violation of child rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".