Towards Effective Implementation of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( CRC ) in 1989 marked an important step towards the ‘legal recognition and protection of the rights of children’. The inadequacies of the CRC regarding some issues peculiar to the African child, however, led to the adoption of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child ( ACRWC or African Children’s Charter) in 1990, to complement the CRC and provide protection to children in peculiar African realities. The desired effects of the Charter will, however, only be achieved if its provisions are diligently implemented. Based on desk research and semi-structured interviews, this article discusses the implementation of the ACRWC in Egypt, highlighting the legislative and other measures adopted by Egypt to implement the provisions of the ACRWC . It also considers the role of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (African Children’s Committee) in ensuring implementation of the ACRWC in Egypt through the state reporting and complaint mechanisms and considers the measures adopted by Egypt towards the implementation of concluding observations of the African Children’s Committee. It concludes with recommendations on how Egypt can better implement the provisions of the ACRWC .
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 | 0.043 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".