Accompanying early childhood professional reflection in Quebec: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the views of professionals from the Centre for Assistance and Support to Initiatives, Organisations, and Professionals in Early Childhood (CASIOPE) and its member organizations on how reflective practice in early childhood professional learning is understood, put into practice, and evaluated. Findings from this case study reveal that CASIOPE used principles of constructivist learning theories to develop their own reflective process, but that this process is understood incompletely and variably by the majority of its members. Findings are presented in the context of a current struggle to define early childhood professional learning between, on the one hand, a means of improving programme quality, and, on the other hand, a right to which all early childhood professionals are entitled. This study suggests that, in practice, both goals are important to childcare administrators in Montreal, while CASIOPE’s staff members prioritize building relationships, helping people, adapting their services to the needs of all those involved, and professional empowerment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".