Children’s Rights, Educational Research and the UNCRC: past, present and future (2016) Jenna Gillett-Swan and Vicki Coppock, editors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
a timely collection of essays that address various aspects of the many children's rights debates that have occurred since the inception of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).After an introductory note on the importance of contextualization for all conversations about children's rights, each of the authors in this text situate their work within the historical and political contexts of their particular locations while also revealing how each piece intersects with the convention itself.Coppock and Gillett-Swan set the stage for this type of contextualization in their introduction by bringing forward some of the more established literature on the topic.Bringing in noted authors as they do is particularly helpful for those new to discussions of children's rights, but serves also as a gentle reminder of the historical and current debates for those who are already well-versed in the field.By specifically highlighting themes that Reynaert, Bouverne-de Bie, and Vandevelde (2009) provide in their review of children's rights literature, the editors acknowledge the significance of the work that precedes theirs, and locate firmly their text within the field.In addition, they provide readers who are new to children's rights discussions with an important starting point.At the same time, they show a strong commitment to the understanding of children's rights as dynamic and evolving, requiring educational researchers to be continuously aware and reflective of the many "opportunities and tensions" (p.14) apparent in the convention document and in children's rights more broadly.Oddly enough, it may be helpful to begin the journey of this book by reading the epilogue first.Here the editors provide some key messages they see as being fundamental for children's rights work.As they are all relevant, scanning these over-arching themes first may help the reader to recognize them more readily when encountering them in the rest of the text.Aside from this anomaly, the progression of the chapters for this volume is well planned as the overall text gradually brings the reader towards a fuller understanding of the convention itself and the significant debates that have coloured the field since its widespread ratification.By reading through the first half of the book in particular, readers are given a useful theoretical and historical overview of the field of children's rights.Building on the ideas the editors present in the introduction, subsequent authors review literature centred on children's rights theory (I'Anson), historical conceptions of childhood (Phillips), understandings of human rights
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".