Child and youth participation in child protection: Provincial harm reduction policy efforts in the Canadian Province of New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) affirms interdependent rights to protection and participation, but barriers continue to hinder participation in protection practices. OBJECTIVE: What can be learned from young people's participation in their own protection when it comes to harm reduction public policy efforts? PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: This study focused on provincial public policy in New Brunswick, Canada and involved both children and adults in research design and data collection. The provincial Youth Voice Committee was created to inform the development and implementation of the provincial harm reduction strategy. This strategy promotes children's rights to live free from harm through the reduction of physical, sexual, emotional, and sociocultural harms, not only abuse and neglect. METHOD: This study involved international and local child and youth advisory committees to support research design and implementation. Participatory qualitative data collection methods included young people and adults separately as well as collectively in intergenerational meetings. RESULTS: Findings reveal a broad and unique interpretation of child protection as harm reduction, and that fear and policy processes continue to pose barriers even in contexts dedicated to children's rights. Adults should no longer exclusively influence protection policies, and children and youth are interested in effective intergenerational and relational collaborations. Greater commitment to diversity is needed in participatory efforts. CONCLUSIONS: A rights-based relational approach in research and policy-making necessitates the effective involvement of children and youth to support harm reduction in policy and practice. Policy makers are urged to engage young people alongside adults in child protection and public policies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".