Hiding the Elephant: Child Care Coverage in Four Daily Newspapers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As more adult women with young children have entered the paid labour force in the last decade, more Canadian families are seeking access to affordable child care. One might expect to observe a measurable and decided increase in coverage of child care in major media in that time. Yet, in terms of articles recorded and analyzed in four major Canadian dailies, child care has remained marginal, moving in and out of the spotlight and often all but disappearing. Even the Toronto Star, which covered the issue the most frequently of the dailies examined, had coverage that varied markedly between 2000 and 2007. By counting articles about child care, we found that the greatest jumps in coverage in all four dailies were spikes in 2000 and 2005-2006-coinciding with federal election campaigns. A closer look at the 2005- 2006 period revealed that the National Post had the least extensive coverage. Nonetheless, it too had higher than its normal coverage during the campaign. At that time the newspapers’ coverage nearly doubled, in all but one paper, before falling to their average (low) yearly coverage, in 2007- again, despite a continuing unmet demand for affordable child care among Canadian 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".