Advancing Children’s Rights through Law and Policy: Experiences from Brazil, Scotland, and South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents experiences of advancing children’s participation in law and policy in Brazil, Scotland and South Africa. It is based on a conversation that took place in a webinar hosted by the Policy Working Group of the International and Canadian Child Rights Partnership. Using duoethnography, we delve into three issues: (1) ways children participate in the development of child-related laws and policies; (2) the leverage points for navigating across well-entrenched power dynamics; and (3) reflections for progressing the children's rights project forward. The discussion indicates that structures and mechanisms, such as children’s parliaments and youth councils, support children’s participation in the development of law and policy. However, the lasting impact of children's participation is contingent on relational opportunities and the broader socio-political landscape. Part of undoing the legacy of children’s exclusion from the political realms involves disrupting conventional notions of intergenerational spaces by creative opportunities for better listening between children and decision-makers. Transforming the culture and process of decision-making for child rights also entails strategic advocacy with families, communities, various interest groups and civil society.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".