MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2338843930 · doi:10.14288/1.0054469

Early childhood educators’ experiences implementating a social competence promotion program for preschool-aged children : the "safe spaces" program

2010· article· en· W2338843930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ángela María Jaramillo

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologySocial competenceEarly childhoodMedical educationPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial changePolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this research was to describe the implementation of the Safe Spaces program across child care settings. The Safe Spaces program is a universal primary preventive program designed to foster preschool-aged children's emotional and social competence via a series of lessons that teach children emotional understanding and prosocial behaviours. The program was piloted in one child care centre in 2001 and is currently being implemented in over 50 child care settings across British Columbia, Canada. Although the Safe Spaces program has anecdotal evidence suggesting positive outcomes, little is known about whether or not the program is being implemented as intended across different child care settings and how child care centre characteristics, including early childhood educators' beliefs and experiences, might influence program implementation. Accordingly, 10 Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) drawn from five child care centres implementing the Safe Spaces program were asked to provide information via a series of questionnaires, interviews, and implementation record logs about the implementation of the Safe Spaces program in each of their centres. Results revealed high implementation (i.e., program adherence, extent to which specific program components are delivered as prescribed in program manuals and dosage, the frequency with which program techniques are implemented) of the Safe Spaces program across centres. Despite these reports, educators revealed that centre, child, and implementers' characteristics were related to the adoption and implementation of the program. Challenges and successes help identify recommendations for future implementation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→