MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kindergarten in Ontario – An Exceptional Case of a Publicly Funded Early Childhood Education Since 1883

2020· article· en· W3107959786 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Danuta Wloka

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarly childhood educationEarly childhoodContext (archaeology)IdeologyGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPeriod (music)Political sciencePublic policyChild careIntersection (aeronautics)Economic growthSociologyPedagogyHistoryPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGeographyPediatricsMedicineLawArchaeologyCartographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario has the distinction of having the longest and the richest history of public kindergarten in Canada. Ontario’s kindergarten is an exception in the field of publicly funded early childhood care and education in Canada, where the care and education of preschool-aged children has not been recognized as the government’s responsibility. This article traces the development of Ontario’s public kindergarten from its inception in 1883 to the current Full-Day Early Learning–Kindergarten Program. It identifies the evolving characteristics of kindergarten, trends, and paradigmatic changes in the analyzed period by using a longue durée approach as per Fernand Braudel. It explores the context of each historical phase of Ontario’s kindergarten development, the intersection of political agendas, ideologies, and economic and pragmatic considerations that were impacting kindergarten policies.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0410.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207