Contributions of School-Based Parenting and Family Literacy Centres in an Early Childhood Service System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, governments are seeking ways to integrate early childhood education and care services as a social policy strategy to maximize child and family outcomes. This study examines the role of a school-based parenting and family literacy program to a system of services in one community in Ontario, Canada. Using an appreciative inquiry approach, focus groups and questionnaires conducted with participants of the programs provide a view of how these programs are contributing in a community where there are a range of programs in place. These programs were described by parents as welcoming places with interesting and engaging program activities, facilities, and resources that support child development. Additionally, supports for all family members--including referrals to services which helped families in many aspects of their lives--were described as benefits of participating. The contributions of Parenting and Family Literacy Centres (PFLCs) are evident from the data and are discussed in relation to the contributions of other services and programs in the community. Additional findings examine participants' patterns of service use across the community, which shows they are using school-based services more than community-based early years services. These findings are discussed in relation to the service integration goals of provincial social policy strategies.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".