The Learning, Earning and Parenting (LEAP) Program of Ontario Works Two Decades On: A Descriptive Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although scholarship on social assistance (or welfare) has proliferated over the years, there remains a dearth of literature on the Learning, Earning and Parenting (LEAP) program for teenage parents. We followed two LEAP cohorts (Cohort One: 2003-8; Cohort Two: 2009-14) over five years to explore how many had stayed, shifted programs (e.g. to the disability program) or left social assistance entirely. Exit rates, while higher for Cohort One (51.3 per cent relative to 43 per cent for Cohort Two), were fairly low; roughly 10 per cent lower than those of the overall social assistance caseload. LEAP does not appear to vastly improve the employment prospects of a significant proportion of its participants over time. American researchers are proposing a shift in programming towards a two-generation approach, pairing early childhood education with parent human capital development, Ontario – who imported LEAP from its US counterparts from the beginning – should follow suit.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".