Center-Based Child Care and Differential Improvements in the Child Development Outcomes of Disadvantaged Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research finds center-based child care typically benefits children of low socio-economic status (SES) but few studies have examined if it also reduces inequalities in developmental disadvantage. OBJECTIVE: I test if the length of time in center-based care between ages one and three years associates with child development scores at age three years, focusing on the impact for groups of children in the lower tercile of child development scores and in the lower SES tercile. METHODS: Using data from 1,606 children collected in a nationally representative Chilean survey, I apply a value-added approach to measure gains in child development scores between age one and three years that are associated with length of time in center-based child care. RESULTS: Disadvantages at age one year were associated with lower child development scores at age three years. No benefits of additional time in center-based care were found for the non-disadvantaged group, but positive associations were found between more time in center-based care and child development outcomes for children with the SES disadvantage only. Center-based care was not associated with child development trajectories of children with lower child development scores at age one year, no matter their SES status. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that Chilean center-based child care reduces SES inequality in child development scores between ages one and three years, but only if children already were not low-scorers at age one year.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".