Bibliographic record
Abstract
2The aim of this paper is to explore the idea of children’s rights and child poverty within a broader framework of human rights. It suggests that one of the reasons for the continuing marginalisation of children’s rights is the way we have constructed the idea of human rights and a corresponding human rights discourse. Our ideas of rights are inextricably connected with our ideas of citizenship. It is from our definitions of citizenship – what it means to be a citizen – that our definitions of rights emerge (Twine 1994). This is one of the reasons why the idea of human rights can be so problematic. We are used to thinking of rights as consequences of citizenship, and we understand citizenship primarily in relation to the nation state; the rights of a Canadian citizen, an Australian citizen, and so on. It is by belonging to a particular nation state that we are ascribed our rights, and it is through the mechanisms of the nation state that those rights are protected or realised. However the idea of human rights is that we have rights not on the basis of our national citizenship, but simply on the basis of our being human; wherever we were born and whatever our national citizenship, we inherit the same basic set of human rights. There are two
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.664 | 0.303 |
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".