The (limited) contribution of early childcare arrangements to social and academic development among Canadian children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the longitudinal contribution of four different childcare arrangements attended during the preschool years to social behaviors and academic achievement up to age 15 years. Children participating in a Canadian longitudinal survey with available information on childcare attendance between ages 3 and 5 years (N = 6,852) were measured on multiple social behaviors (hyperactivity/inattention, depression/anxiety, disruptive behaviors) and academic outcomes (mathematic skills, academic achievement) across both childhood and adolescence. We conducted a propensity score matching analysis to control the selection bias for childcare attendance and performed generalized estimating equation models for panel data among matched groups. Our results showed no clear social or academic long-term advantage for Canadian children of attending any childcare arrangement in comparison to children being exclusively cared for by their parents. In contrast, children attending daycare centers had higher levels of hyperactivity/inattention until the age of 15 years. Children also had lower mathematic skills if attending daycare centers or informal childcare at preschool age, but this effect dissipated from childhood to adolescence. Interestingly, children from low-income families had higher levels of depression/anxiety if being cared for at home by someone other than their parents or relatives. This finding supports the dual-risk hypothesis suggesting that children from already impoverished families and attending informal childcare in their own home are at greater risk for internalizing difficulties. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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".