Are Creches a Haven for Child Care or Cesspool for Infection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing number of Nigerian women in the labour force and disintegration of the extended family system, has led to demand for alternative means of caring for children. Crèche facilities serve as alternative sources of childcare. This study aimed at assessing the adequacy of crèches in a community in Nigeria to offer child care.The study employed a descriptive cross-sectional study design; a total of 14 out of 18 crèches in the town were assessed using a checklist (78% response rate), only 62% of parents of enrolled children accepted to be interviewed while all care givers were interviewed with a questionnaire. Swab samples for microbiological analysis were collected from floors, beddings and toys in the crèches and subjected to microbiological analysis.Less than two-fifth (38%) of caregivers had good knowledge about early childhood care. About two-thirds (65%) of the caregivers had some training in early childhood care. None of the creche had an infection control policy while a little over half (57%) had good environmental hygiene status, 93% had good safety practices and 71% had fair infection control practices. Organisms isolated are Staphylococcus aureus (59%), Aerobic spore bearer (13%) and Proteus vulgaris (5%) while 28% yielded no growth. Staphylococcus aureus was resistant to second line antibiotics and only 44% were sensitive to Gentamicin. Proteus vulgaris was resistant to most antibiotics but sensitive to Gentamicin.Knowledge of care givers about childcare practices was poor. Infection control practice was fair despite absence of infection control policy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".