Assessing the impacts on child welfare practice of important articles of the UN convention on the rights of the child: A comparison of Australia, Canada and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) emphasizes the centrality of the family, culture and community in the nurturing and socialization of all children, and the responsibility of governments to develop laws, policies and programs that support families and children to achieve their human potentials, and to be protected from discrimination, violence, exploitation and other harms. Children requiring protective interventions should be placed in homes within their cultural or community milieu. However, in many countries protective interventions are not required by policy to enact a child rights approach, nor to ensure that children's best interests of are required in case decision-making, and corporal punishment is not outlawed. In this article we pose the question: How impactful has the CRC been upon the policy and practice in child protection/welfare systems in Australia, Canada and the USA? We apply a critical comparative lens to examine how the CRC has been implemented and operationalized in these nations, focusing upon two important Articles: the best interests principle and corporal punishment. We assess the current state of CYP's rights and describe and analyze the extent to which these countries have formally or informally embedded and operationalized the CRC into their child protection legislations, policies and practices. We compare and contrast these nation's protective system achievements using publicly available sources of analysis and commentary. We examine the ways in which the CRC plays a transformative role in child welfare systems and its potential to be a greater force for much needed system change.
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 | 0.012 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".