MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767662414 · doi:10.1177/1048291117739417

The Job Content, Context, and Requirements of Regulated Home-Based Childcare Workers

2017· article· en· W2767662414 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariam Stitou, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Dafna Kohen

Bibliographic record

VenueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemunerationHousekeepingContext (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)Work (physics)BusinessPsychologyMental healthQualitative researchNursingApplied psychologyPublic relationsMedicineSociologyEngineeringPolitical scienceGeographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contrary to a large and growing literature on center-based childcare workers, we know little about the work and health experiences of those providing childcare services in their homes. This study examines the job content, context, and requirements of regulated Home-Based Childcare workers in Canada. It is based on the qualitative analysis of eleven individual semistructured interviews. These workers perform business administration tasks and more housekeeping and domestic work than those in the center-based childcare, which affect their health and well-being. In addition, they reported factors related to the context and the content of their job such as the high physical and mental efforts, the absence of contact with other adults during working hours, the lack of external help, the exposure to noise and bad odors, the interference of work with personal and family life, the precarious remuneration, and the lack of benefits as potential factors that may affect their health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNEW SOLUTIONS A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health PolicySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207