Integrating Children and Youth Participation into Resilience Planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 places obligations on States to provide opportunities for children to express their opinions and to have these opinions be taken seriously in matters that affect their lives. While many studies from around the world have shown that children and youth can meaningfully participate to inform a wide range of issues, wide-scale implementation of children’s participation and thus the realization of children’s rights, is still not widely achieved. In the context of planning for urban resilience, three cities in three diverse nations approached integration of children and youth into resilience planning, with varying success. While each city was able to support children’s voicing of perspectives facilitators also struggled with how to authentically integrate youth voices into a new realm of planning—for urban resilience. This article thus shares the approaches and objectives from each city and reflects on what can be learned from these experiences when trying to integrate children and youth opinions and perspectives into community planning, particularly when guided by international frameworks or agendas. While each city has some success in realizing children’s rights to participate, to a certain extent, lack of municipal frameworks for participation and lack of knowledge about and support for children’s participation among municipal leaders inhibited the realization of children’s participation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it