Troubling Government Discourse on Early Learning Websites: A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an international study released in 2008, Canada’s provision of early childhood education and care ranked at the very bottom of 25 developed countries, achieving only one of ten minimum standards as outlined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(UNICEF, 2008). The results of this study, in addition to other emerging research (e.g., Janus & Offord, 2007), has attributed to the production and implementation of several early learning initiatives within Ministries across Canada (Beach, Friendly, Ferns, Prabhu, & Forera, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to analyze how children, childhood, and families are portrayed on multi-sector Ministry websites in western provinces and territories (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and Northwest Territories) as government transitions to these new initiatives and programs. Results indicate that the texts promote deficit notions of families and endorse families’ participation in these initiatives as ways to ensure success, not only in the child’s readiness for school, but in future individual economic success.
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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".