P1-359 Public opinion of childcare providers in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess public opinion about, and interactions with, childcare providers and programs. Methods Between September 2007 and March 2008, 1443 randomly selected adults living in Alberta, Canada, completed a telephone survey. Individuals were eligible to participate if they had interactions with a child <14 years of age in the past 6 months. Results Of the respondents, 52% believed the government should cover between 40 and 60% of daycare costs, with 24% indicating more coverage and 23% indicating less coverage. Three-quarters (72%) indicated that childcare providers at daycare centres should have at least a college diploma. About 80 to 90% indicated that childcare providers were as central to children's development as elementary school teachers, with females and parents more likely to believe this for some developmental domains (p<0.05). Overall, 32% of parents had sought information on child development and behaviour from childcare providers. Independent predictors of using childcare providers as a resource included having children under the age of 6 years (OR=1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46), having children in care for more than 6 h per week (OR=19.88, 95% CI 11.51 to 34.35), and being unmarried (OR=2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.73). Conclusions Among Alberta adults who recently interacted with children, there was support for public funding of childcare. Adults recognised that childcare providers play a critical role in supporting optimal child development and their beliefs about the need for education among childcare providers are in line with research evidence in the area. Policy and decision makers may find this information helpful in allocating resources to promote child development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".