MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241677151 · doi:10.1177/183693911003500204

Transitions to Early Childhood Education and Care for Indigenous Children and Families in Canada: Historical and Social Realities

2010· article· en· W2241677151 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Laurence Hare, Jim Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Early Childhood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEarly childhoodMilestoneNegotiationEarly childhood educationTransition (genetics)Project commissioningDevelopmental psychologyPublishingSociologyGender studiesEconomic growthPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition into formal early learning settings, such as preschool and child care, represents a significant milestone for children and families. This paper explores the perspectives of 25 indigenous parents and family members and two caregivers reflecting on the transition of the indigenous children from their home to an early childhood development program in a large urban centre in western Canada. Our findings suggest that the transition experiences begin well before indigenous children and families join a program. There are factors that facilitate their participation, such as costs, transportation and location. How these parents negotiate their transition is impacted by their historical experiences with schooling and the place of culture and language in supporting their children and families. Early learning programs need to understand the social, cultural and historical realities that shape the transition experience for indigenous children and families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0350.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of Early ChildhoodSame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207