Family Policies in Quebec and the Rest of Canada: Implications for Fertility, Child-Care, Women’s Paid Work, and Child Development Indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given its unique demographic situation, and its desire to be in control of its own destiny, Quebec has evolved family policies that differ considerably from those of the rest of Canada. Quebec’s tradition of civil law, in contrast to common law in the rest of the country, has meant that there was already a tradition of alternative forms of marriage in Quebec. The extent of cohabitation, along with the greater policy attention to family questions, has brought about a more Nordic model there in contrast to a more liberal model in the rest of the country. Attitudes differ considerably between Quebec and other provinces in terms of child-care (since 1997) and parental leave (since 2006). The Nordic model has helped Quebec to avoid particularly low fertility. Its child-care policy has been designed both to improve child welfare and to enhance women’s opportunities in employment. Comparisons to other provinces indicate that women’s paid work has benefited, but child development indicators are less positive. It may be that universal programs do not permit as much focus on disadvantaged children, where early intervention has a larger impact.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".