The Rights of Children for Optimal Development and Nurturing Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of children are subjected to abuse, neglect, and displacement, and millions more are at risk for not achieving their developmental potential. Although there is a global movement to change this, driven by children's rights, progress is slow and impeded by political considerations. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a global comprehensive commitment to children's rights ratified by all countries in the world except the United States (because of concerns about impingement on sovereignty and parental authority), has a special General Comment on "Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood." More recently, the World Health Organization and United Nations Children's Fund have launched the Nurturing Care Framework for Early Childhood Development (ECD), which calls for public policies that promote nurturing care interventions and addresses 5 interrelated components that are necessary for optimal ECD. This move is also complemented by the Human Capital Project of the World Bank, providing a focus on the need for investments in child health and nutrition and their long-term benefits. In this article, we outline children's rights under international law, the underlying scientific evidence supporting attention to ECD, and the philosophy of nurturing care that ensures that children's rights are respected, protected, and fulfilled. We also provide pediatricians anywhere with the policy and rights-based frameworks that are essential for them to care for and advocate for children and families to ensure optimal developmental, health, and socioemotional outcomes. These recommendations do not necessarily reflect American Academy of Pediatrics policy.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".