Challenges of child participation in child welfare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) stipulates that children have the right to express their views and to participate in decisions that directly affect them. Uncomplicated enough one would have supposed, intuitive in fact, for who could possibly argue against children and young people (C&YP) having a voice in decisions that affect them - the most basic of human rights. After all adults enjoy this right. And for the authors of the Convention, this inalienable right must have seemed obvious too, fundamental almost in its inherent assumption that it is just the right thing to do. But the reality of successfully applying Article 12 has bedevilled legislators, policy makers, and practitioners alike since the inception on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) as they struggle to decipher and apply their Article 12 obligations to practice (McCafferty, 2022). So, children´s participation in child welfare is major challenge for the professional of social work. Despite the international imperatives and their recognition as social actors, it continues a complex area for the practitioners and researchers. This study aims to examine academic articles related to children´s participation in child welfare.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".