MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765688663 · doi:10.22215/cjcr.v2i1.56

Approaches to promoting ideas about children’s rights and participation: Can the education of undergraduate students contribute to raising the visibility of the child in relation to child participation in Canada?

2015· article· en· W2765688663 on OpenAlex
Sam Frankel, Sally McNamee, Alan Pomfret

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Children s Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationRaising (metalworking)PublishingCertificatePolitical scienceVisibilityChild rightsEarly childhood educationRelation (database)PedagogyPublic relationsSociologyLawHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares children’s participation rights in England and in Canada. It argues that the increasing participation of children in English policy and legislation is linked to research and publishing from those working in the new paradigm of the social study of childhood. We consider that one effect of the relatively low take up from Canadian academics in this sub-discipline may be one reason as to why child participation has somewhere to go in Canada. We describe an undergraduate program that has recently added a Child Advocacy Certificate or Diploma, and contend that undergraduate education grounded in the new paradigm can positively impact advocacy and participation, as well as feeding into wider societal understandings of childhood.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.247 · 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