Risk perception, regulation, and unlicensed child care: lessons from Ontario, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014, the Province of Ontario, Canada undertook a number of legislative changes regarding child care. Part way through the process, a series of tragic focusing events occurred: a number of infants and children died in unlicensed child care over a short period of time. Despite these events, the Province chose to allow a portion of the family child care (FCC) sector to remain unlicensed and essentially unregulated in a sector that is otherwise subject to strict licensing and regulation. Drawing on research on risk regulation, we analyse FCC regulation in comparison to other sectors and find that FCC is surprisingly under-regulated, given the health and safety risks. Legislative debate analysis reveals a number of rationales for non-regulation. In addition to pragmatic political concerns such as costs associated with licensing, analysis reveals concerns about choice and accessibility over quality and safety. We conclude with a call for a research agenda to further examine parents’ and policy-makers’ perceptions of risk.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it