Réformer le financement des services de garde au Québec: oui, mais comment? Reforming the financing of child care in Quebec: Yes, but how?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a possible Quebec election fast approaching, funding for child care (and public services in general) may rise to the top of the policy agenda. In the study "Reforming the financing of child care in Quebec: Yes, but how?, " the authors analyze the impact of two proposals on the issue, and propose a third option for consideration. The third option would abolish direct subsidies and replace them with offsetting provincial tax credit for childcare expenses. This reform would achieve several objectives simultaneously. First, it would make the size of government assistance more transparent to families. Second, it would allow more effective selection and management of childcare costs. Thirdly, it would protect the income of poorer families (including single parents) and encourage mothers to participate in the labour force. Finally, this reform would increase significantly the participation of federal funding of child care in Quebec. (Note: Study in French; Abstract in English)
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| 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".