Bibliographic record
Abstract
By employing the principles and standards of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (crc), this paper explores the significance and implications of children’s rights for child welfare, with a specific focus on theoretical paradigms of practice. Reform discussions in child welfare scholarship often have centred on deficiencies in the Anglo-American child protection paradigm associated with liberal welfare states. Alternative paradigms are contrasted, most notably the family service approach to child welfare generally found in Nordic, social democratic welfare states. Whilst the crc supports a family service paradigm, the paper highlights disturbing tendencies in reform discussions that are traceable to theoretical roots in the widely adopted and referenced Esping-Andersen/Gilbert classifications of cultures and child welfare paradigms. Whilst the classifications have proven to be useful, the paper explores the need for a more nuanced and complex characterisation of cultures and paradigms, to avoid misunderstandings and conceptual confusion. In particular, children’s rights often are associated only with liberal welfare states and child protection paradigms, and therefore adopting a family service paradigm is conceptualised as moving away from a children’s rights or child protection focus. In fact, a children’s rights framework for child welfare would establish provision, protection and participation as equal and interrelated priorities, whilst still emphasising the importance of a child-centred analysis.
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 | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".