MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593321301 · doi:10.4324/9780203157954

Debates on Early Childhood Policies and Practices

2012· book· en· W1593321301 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhoodEarly childhood educationMainstreamPrologueDilemmaCurriculumPedagogyPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyArtLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

History, infrastructure and capacity for early childhood development (ECD) policies in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) have traditionally been positive and strong. The period of transition from Soviet control in the early 1990s was marked by economic decline, decrease in availability of services and reduced ECD outcomes. This chapter describes the approach of one international organisation to tackling challenges for young children and families in Uzbekistan. Findings indicated that a range of strategies - from home visits and one-to-one contacts to targeted community and service-provider engagement and national partnerships - delivered key messages about safe motherhood, public health and practice of child nutrition, sanitation and hygiene, psychological, physical and social development of children. Kindergarten enrolment was most neglected at 16.5 per cent of eligible children. By focusing on the most vulnerable children, families and communities and their health, social care and welfare needs, it was possible to scale up coverage and incorporate ECD for basic schooling. Postcolonial theory served as a tool to uncover forms of power and control that are old and new. © 2012 selection and editorial material, Theodora Papatheodorou.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207