Measuring Progress: Evaluating the Use and Added Value of Indicators for Children’s Rights Compliance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During the last decades, the use of indicators as tools for assessing states’ compliance with children’s human rights legal provisions included in the related international treaties has rapidly multiplied, both at national and international levels, intended mainly to support policy and strategy reforms to increase social justice, well-being and the implementation of some specific rights. These indicators in the human rights sector build on the use of indicators in the global governance sector. As Sally Engle Merry explains in her ethnography of indicators, the use of indicators in global governance today is primarily derived from economics and business management, even though their roots as modes of knowledge and governance date back several centuries to the establishment of modern nation-states in the early nineteenth century and some centuries before that. For example, the gross domestic product is one of the most extensively used and recognised indicators. Development organisations like the World Bank have developed a wide range of indicators, including measures of global governance and the rule of law (Merry, 2011).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it