MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006755650 · doi:10.5070/g314342949

Do children want environmental rights? Ask the Children!

2019· article· en· W3006755650 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Green Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersImperial College London
KeywordsSafeguardingEnvironmental educationArgument (complex analysis)Rights of NaturePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsNatural (archaeology)SociologyHuman rightsPublic relationsFundamental rightsLawRight to propertyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we argue for the importance of application and safeguarding of the ‘environmental rights of children,’ and further argue that an understanding of children’s perspectives towards nature and their rights to a viable and healthy environment can help both educational and policy development. To that end, we present a case study of preliminary qualitative research conducted in the United Kingdom that asks children themselves their views and degree of exposure to the natural environment. This research is underpinned by an environmental rights-based approach for environmental education, and a novel argument for incorporating children’s own understandings and perspectives in application of environmental rights. We conclude with recommendations for strengthening children’s environmental engagement, protection of rights, and education, and recognize that there is a need for further research to better understand children’s perspectives to their own environmental 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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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