The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in postmodernity : a grounded systemic analysis of children's rights educational policies in Scotland and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a contribution towards the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004), this qualitative, comparative policy study investigated the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) within the Scottish and Canadian educational systems. The researcher adopted an inductive, grounded methodology which is argued to be most congruent when building theory is the chief aim (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 2005). During \n20 months of fieldwork, 50 key informant interviews were obtained in Geneva, New York, Scotland and Canada. The author contends that postmodern thinking has contributed much towards contemporary childhood research, yet an underlying deconstruction of the CRC constrains theoretical development. To address this breakdown of overarching leitmotifs within the social sciences (Esping-Andersen, \n2000), the sociology of human rights is utilised as a conceptual framework (Luhmann, 1965, 1982, 1997; Q'Byrne, 2003; Verschraegen, 2002). Furthermore, through the integration of grounded and autopoietic coding (Glaser, 2005), the interview texts revealed six thematic categories that contradict dominant theoretical approaches in the child rights literature. While descriptive and comparative analyses revealed the study's \ncore category of participation, an interpretive analysis further yielded its core distinction of power. The author argues that Scottish efforts to implement the CRC within educational policies are more widespread than any of those currently underway within Canadian jurisdictions (Mitchell, 2002, 2003a, b). Finally, a grounded systemic \nchild rights model developed from the study's methodological and epistemological integration illustrates how CRC knowledge and power are balanced within and across educational systems (Mitchell, 2005).
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".