A DECADE OF DISCONNECTION: CHILD CARE POLICIES IN CHANGING ECONOMIC TIMES IN THE CANADIAN CONTEXT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article brings together findings from two studies that focus on child care in Canada. The first maps the coverage of child care over the first decade of the 21st century in four Canadian daily newspapers. It shows that the voices of children, mothers, and child care providers are virtually absent from policy discussions. The second study, which remedies the parental invisibility identified by the first study, relies on interviews with mothers of young children in two jurisdictions with distinctive approaches to child care – the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. This article looks at the impact on gender roles, identities, and relations of the rise in women’s non-standard, service-sector employment and compares the complex task of creating and managing formal and informal non-parental child care in rural and semi-rural communities in the two policy jurisdictions (Ontario and Quebec). It seeks to understand the ways in which the neo-liberal reconfiguration of local economies affects the experiences of employed, non-urban women with young children – mitigated or exacerbated by provincial policy – through documenting the strategies that mothers adopt to face new, increasing challenges when negotiating this family-market-state nexus. This paper focuses on unique challenges some rural mothers encounter and the strategies they develop to address their changing child care needs. It also shows how absent these realities are from the coverage of child care in Canadian newspapers. The paper argues that high quality child care should be a national priority for healthy child development and better family outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".