Application of the UN convention on rights of the child to young carers in the United States : US policies in international context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 1.4 million children under the age of 18 in the United States provide some measure of care to a parent or ill family member. These young in the United States are an isolated group, with no state or national policies providing support or care, in contrast to the numerous programs for adult caregivers in the United States. In the absence of any support programming, this paper examines United States carers within a rights context, focusing on rights defined by the UN convention on the rights of the child (UNCRC). The paper examines how the conventions and policies are applied to other countries including the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa, and can be used to support the development of services, policies and legislation targeting the rights of carers in the United States. An analysis of the UNCRC found several articles pertaining to carers. Article 19 provides for the right to be protected from violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation; Article 9, on the need to keep carers with their parents; Article 17, on addressing the role media can play in raising awareness of carers; Article 28 underscores the right to do well in school, and is vital to carers whose schoolwork frequently suffers as a result of care-giving duties; Article 31 addresses rest and leisure, underscoring the right to have down time and rest from their care-giving lives; and finally, Article 32 recognizes the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and the need to provide financial support for carers. The United States pays little to no attention to carers. Thus, basing carer needs within a rights based framework, including those used by other countries, may provide the backing for the development and creation of support policies across the United States for an isolated, underserved population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".