MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566183538 · doi:10.1080/13642987.2016.1262520

Children’s rights to participation and protection in international development and humanitarian interventions: nurturing a dialogue

2016· article· en· W2566183538 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mónica Ruiz‐Casares, Tara M. Collins, E. Kay M. Tisdall, Sonja C. Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Human Rights · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHuman rightsChild protectionPolitical scienceCitizen journalismChild rightsPsychological interventionConvention on the Rights of the ChildInternational developmentPublic administrationPublic relationsEconomic growthLawPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This introduction provides the rationale for the special issue of the International Journal of Human Rights on the topic of the children’s right to participation and protection in international development and humanitarian efforts. It summarises selected contributions relating to an international conference entitled ‘Facilitating Child Participation in International Child Protection’ that took place 5–6 October 2015 at Ryerson University in Toronto (Canada). The concepts of child participation and child protection are explored. Then, the challenges and opportunities are highlighted regarding the actual and potential participatory role of children and young people in effective child protection. Finally, an overview of the articles included in this collection is provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.036
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Human RightsSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207