MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959540153 · doi:10.22215/cjcr.v4i1.1163

Children’s Rights Are Human Rights and Why Canadian Implementation Lags Behind

2017· article· en· W2959540153 on OpenAlex
Mona Paré

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 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsInternational human rights lawPleaReservation of rightsPolitical scienceFundamental rightsConvention on the Rights of the ChildLawRight to propertyRights of NatureLinguistic rightsLaw and economicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child rights scholarship is increasingly calling for further theorization of children’s rights, and research using the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a framework is being criticized. This paper discusses children’s rights as a legal concept that is part of wider international human rights law. It recognizes the importance of critical studies and the contribution of other disciplines, but it makes a plea for not rejecting a legal reality. Children do have rights, and these are legal norms. The paper refers to Canadian practice as an example of how the lack of recognition of children’s rights as human rights can adversely affect the place of children in a country that is known for its respect for 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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