MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Small Town, Big Benefits: The Ripple Effect of 7/day Child Care*

2006· article· fr· W2126707674 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrizia Albanese

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedHumanitiesSociologyChild carePsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineNursingArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, l'auteure présente quelques résultats d'une enquête d'approche qualitative auprès de méres et d'éducatrices visant à analyser les répercussions du programme éducatif québécois (service de garde offrant des places pour une contribution parentale de 7 par jour) sur une ville frontière defavorisée. L'étude, qui présente un échantillon des commentaires de mères et d'éducatrices, constitue la première phase d'un projet de trois volets. l'article démontre comment un investissement dans les enfants au moyen d'un programme uni‐versel a pu avoir un impact d'ensemble sur cette collectivitééconomique‐ment défavorisée, un effet remarqué dans les families et dans la collectivité et, en retour, sur les enfants eux‐mêmes. This paper assesses the impact of Quebec's 7/day child care program on an economically disadvantaged community near the Quebec/Ontario border, using qualitative interviews with mothers of children in the program and with child care workers. A pilot snowball sample of mothers and child care workers marks the first phase of a three‐phase project in the community. This paper shows how investing in children through a universal child care initiative resonates through this economically hard‐hit community, in essence producing a ripple effect through families and the community, and reciprocally back again to children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207