Enquête sur le développement des enfants montréalais à leur entrée à l'école
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the survey was to provide a picture of the school readiness of 5-year-old Montréal children starting school and to identify disparities between neighbourhoods and the socio-economic factors determining these differences. 10,513 children were assessed using the Early Development Instrument. The results show that in Montréal, one child in three is vulnerable in at least one area of school readiness. Figures range from 22% to 43% in the different territories. A significant association was found between parents' level of education and the vulnerability of children. Differences between languages are found when analyzing school readiness based on groups of children by mother tongue. A comparative analysis between Montréal and two other large Canadian cities shows that the average score of children in Montréal is higher than the average score of Vancouver children in all areas and higher than the average score of Toronto children in two areas. The differences between territories in Montréal raise questions about public policies and inequalities in access to services and resources between affluent and less affluent neighbourhoods. A comparative analysis between Montréal and two Canadian cities provides a nuanced view of the perception of child vulnerability in Montréal when compared to the rest of Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".