The Internationalization of Child Protection: Actors, Competition, and Transnational Projects (1900–1925)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article examines in transnational perspective the emergence of child protection reform networks during the first quarter of the twentieth-century and their role in the creation of the League of Nations’ Children’s Protection Committee (1925). By insisting, not only on the continuities linking this organization to the reform networks that preceded it, but also on the competition to which it gave rise among rival networks, one may underscore the issues at stake in this movement to internationalize child protection as well as the tensions to which it gave rise (including models of intervention, the manner in which these should be spread, the role to be played by member organizations in this process and, finally, relations between the LON and NGO networks seeking to assert themselves as the spokesmen of global public opinion). On the one hand, this involves reevaluating the role played by the networks and technical organizations affiliated with the LON in the evolution of contemporaneous child and youth policies. On the other hand, it is a matter of contributing to the renewal of knowledge concerning the modes of institutional operation specific to international organizations by examining them as spaces in which international circulations are structured.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".