International perspectives on the participation of children and young people in the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings from a study exploring children’s participation and protection rights. The research was conducted by the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership (ICCRP) – a multi-sectoral partnership, involving academic institutions, non-government organisations, and young people in five countries. Although funding came from a Canadian federal agency, partners adopted a decolonial approach to break down inequitable power dynamics. This approach ensured the usage of contextually relevant methods and that children’s voices were heard. This paper reports on findings in Brazil, China, and South Africa, where participatory methodologies were used, to explore how young people and adults conceptualise the experience of ‘participating together.’ Our findings show that there is no single conceptualisation of participation that fits the different contexts where the ICCRP worked. In China, the emphasis is on education and respect for parents’ decisions about their lives; in South Africa, it is on respect and duty to elders and community; while in Brazil, participation relates to ‘protagonism’ where there is a rhetoric of young people’s autonomy in public policy. However, in all cases, intergenerational relations are dynamic and evolve over time. Additionally, individuals who experience meaningful participation in public spaces, change their attitude to participation in the private sphere.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".