MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402678927 · doi:10.5751/es-15398-290329

Rights of the child as imperatives for transforming food systems

2024· article· en· W4402678927 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anu Lahteenmäki‐Uutela, Milka Sormunen, Siva Barathi Marimuthu, Nicole Grmelová, Claudia Ituarte‐Lima, Annika Lonkila

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStrategic Research CouncilNaturvårdsverketAcademy of FinlandEuropean CommissionBiodiversa+Joint Programming Initiative Water challenges for a changing world
KeywordsFood systemsPolitical scienceFood securityBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningNatural resource economicsGeographyEconomicsEcologyAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ensuring access to nutritious food, maintaining a healthy planet, and eradicating child labor remain as critical priorities for protecting children’s rights. In this article, we explore issues and problems within the global food systems that impact children’s rights. We explore this through the lens of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We examine the intricacies of the food systems and their effect on children’s rights through five case studies from various regions around the world, looking at the lives of children in Australia, Spain, Mexico, Costa Rica, Mali, and elsewhere. The analysis encompasses topics such as school food programs, unhealthy junk food, climate impacts of farming, health impacts of pesticides, and child labor, all within the global food system. Our aim is to clearly demonstrate that adopting a child rights-based approach to food system governance can promote fairness and justice to children. Our argument is that it is cardinal for states to develop strategies and measures to curtail activities that hinder the realization of children’s rights and promote activities that enhance their realization. States bear a responsibility to restructure the institutional framework and to reinterpret the obligations of businesses to facilitate this objective.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.058
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and Society→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→