A concept analysis of children’s agency within the health literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity of children to act as agents is being increasingly recognized and has important implications for health research and practice. However, there are various discrepancies in how children's agency is defined in the literature. The aim of this analysis was to examine the concept of children's agency within the health-related literature, using Rodgers evolutionary method. The following questions were addressed: How did the concept of agency become associated with children in the health-related literature? What are the sociocultural and legal contexts that surround the concept of children's agency? What is the meaning of children's agency? Forty-five articles were included in the analysis. An inductive approach was used to identify the attributes of children's agency as well as the temporal, disciplinary, and paradigmatic trends in its conceptualization. The concept of children's agency first appeared in the health literature in the 1980s and was defined as an ability children could gradually develop. Later on, children's agency was used to refer to the capacity of all children to influence their own and others' health-care needs and is now increasingly used to refer to children as active agents who reflect on and construct their social worlds.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".