Tax, Time and Territory: The Development of Early Childhood Education and Child Care in Canada and Great Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the evolution of Britain’s and Canada’s early childhood education and child care (ECEC) sectors, especially the growing number of policy initiatives adopted in both countries over the past thirty years. I contend that policy coalitions in both countries have been able to promote gradual but nevertheless important policy changes by grafting new purposes onto inherited institutions. The result of these incremental changes has been ECEC systems that often appear incoherent and disjointed. The dissertation also explores how Canada and Great Britain have increasingly followed distinct trajectories. In particular, I demonstrate that while a growing proportion of ECEC services are provided by the commercial sector in Britain, Canada has instead increasingly relied on the non-profit sector to deliver such services. I contend in this dissertation that differences between the two cases are the result of distinct policy coalitions that have emerged in both countries. I make the case that the character of these coalitions and their capacity to promote, institutionalize, protect and further their policy preferences are the result of, first, the sequence of policy development and, second, the territorial organization of the welfare state in both countries. In short, as a result of the federal nature of Canada, Canadian child care activists were able to ensure the early institutionalization of a regulatory framework that constrained the expansion of for-profit services. By the time Britain adopted a national framework, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, on the other hand, the for-profit sector had already established a strong presence. Covering more than one hundred twenty five years of policy development in both countries, this dissertation draws both on extensive archival research and on interviews with policy-makers and ECEC activists.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".