MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980911289 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340031

Towards Effective Implementation of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in Egypt

2018· article· en· W2980911289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Gyan Nyarko

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterWelfarePolitical scienceLawConvention on the Rights of the ChildLegislatureHuman rightsDeskConventionInternational human rights lawInternational lawPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207