Involving child and youth advisors in academic research about child participation: The Child and Youth Advisory Committees of the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly thirty years ago, the world recognised the participation rights of children with the adoption by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since then childhood researchers in the Global South and Global North have been at the forefront of promoting these rights. The increased involvement of children and youth in research has challenged ‘traditional’ adult research practices in numerous ways. This article explores the role and contributions of Child and Youth Advisory Committees (CYACs) in the research process. It discusses the establishment of CYACs and how they supported the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership (ICCRP). The ICCRP began as a three-year multi-country research project addressing children’s rights to participation and protection and monitoring this connection internationally within several Global South and North countries: Brazil, Canada, China and South Africa. This article describes the creation and functioning of the ICCRP CYACs and the strengths, challenges, and creative processes in implementation. Findings presented relate to ethics regulation, differing expectations and assumptions about CYAC involvement, and virtual communication. These are discussed with the inclusion of adult researchers’ and the CYAC members’ perspectives. The article shares lessons learned about the role and significance of dialogue to support other child and youth advisory bodies in research at the local and global levels.
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 | 0.113 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.052 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".