Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Internet links people across the world. School children, researchers, and average people use the Internet to get information. For home child care providers, electronic mailing lists provide support and resources in practical ways. Posts to such E-mail lists include requests for modeling clay recipes, suggestions for coping with temper-tantrum throwing children and advice on handling taxes, receipts, and other business-related issues. Home child care providers, primarily women, are isolated workers. Alone all day with small children, they long for adult conversation and stimulation. Furthermore, the majority of home providers (in the United States and in Canada) are untrained caregivers, often lacking skills and education in child care, human development, and guidance. The likelihood for frustration is high. Child care-focused E-mail lists are popular places for providers to "vent." Alarmingly, inappropriate responses to typical child behavior is sometimes also justified and supported through these lists. This paper documents two child care E-mail lists and demonstrates the need for caution in promoting the Internet as a resource, particularly for people/professionals caring for children. The positive aspects of the Internet as a resource and support are profiled and a series of recommendations are proposed for ensuring professional and healthy educational use of the Internet for child care providers - both home providers and staff in licensed, regulated settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".