Affecting change in different contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children’s rights have greatly advanced child and youth participation in public dialogues and policymaking around the world. While there is great attention to child and youth-focused activities and efforts, the opportunities for young people and adults to work together and learn from each other in social and public policy forums and other dedicated spaces created by adults for young people are less explored. Inspired by the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership (ICCRP) research in Brazil, Canada, and South Africa, this co-written chapter by both young and older team members focuses on how children, youth, and adults can engage and learn from their intergenerational collaborations with each other in social and public policy dialogues. Adults and young people should have spaces together to contribute to dialogues and policies to share learning, experiences, knowledge and inform efforts. Further, adult support is important to advance children’s rights in public spaces, and adults need to share power, time, and commitment with children and youth. These three countries show valuable lessons and the potential of such intergenerational spaces for public dialogue and policymaking for other countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".