(Un)safe at School: Parents' Work of Securing Nursing Care and Coordinating School Health Support Services Delivery for Children with Diabetes in Ontario Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using institutional ethnography and its approach to mapping institutional sequences (Smith, 2005; Turner, 2006), this paper examines the social organization of School Health Support Services (SHSS) for children with diabetes in Ontario schools. The inquiry starts with my own situated experience as a mother of a child with diabetes starting kindergarten, and the trouble of securing the health supports necessary to care for my child’s health and safety while she is at school. The paper takes up two specific texts—the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) Referral Form and the CCAC Medical Orders for Services at School—to explore and describe how I am drawn into the work of securing, advocating, and supporting the delivery of health support services for my child at school. The paper makes visible how the CCAC Medical Orders for Services at School is an authorized standardized text that stands in for and subdues parents’ experiential knowledge of what is needed to ensure the safety of children with diabetes at school. While the public school system in Canada is formally committed to the equality of access to education for every child without discrimination irrespective of the child’s health conditions and/ or disabilities (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982), what is shown is how parents’ voluntary and supplementary healthcare work and unauthorized knowledge is incorporated into the institutional complex of School Health Support Services and secures the safety of children with diabetes at school. Parents’ work and knowledge is essential for the institution of public schooling to operate as it does, and sustains the official ideal of equal and inclusive education for all. However, there is a difference between how and whether parents can deliver their knowledge and resources.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".