MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385693227 · doi:10.32920/23912874.v1

"Work in Progress: Twenty-five Years of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The General Measures of Implementation Across the Globe

2023· preprint· en· W4385693227 on OpenAlexaff
Tara M. Collins, Lisa Wolff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUnited Nations Children's Fund Canada
FundersAnhui University of Science and TechnologyUNICEF
KeywordsGlobeConventionConvention on the Rights of the ChildHuman rightsLegislationPolitical scienceCorporate governanceState (computer science)Public administrationGeneral assemblyLawEconomicsMedicineManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its adoption twenty-five years ago, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has guided many actors and institutions around the world in relation to children. Yet, what influence has it had upon legislation, policies and programs, and what progress has occurred for children? An important measure of its impact is the status of the General Measures of the Implementation of the CRC, which the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has identified as a foundational requirement of the framework of action. Focusing on law reform, budgeting, monitoring, and independent human rights institutions, this paper describes the state ofthese general measures with examples in different countries around the world to confirm the CRC's significance in governance and public policy. It is submitted that the CRC has been influential in public policy and that there is much more room for progress guided by the CRC. The paper concludes with recommendations for CRC states parties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.038
Scholarly communication0.0170.014
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0080.016
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207