MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248229504 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14664609

Early childhood educators’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities in Ontario’s full day kindergarten program

2021· preprint· en· W4248229504 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rabeya Hossain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPedagogyEarly childhoodQualitative researchWork (physics)PsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyDevelopmental psychologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand early childhood educators’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities based on their lived experiences in Ontario’s full day kindergarten (FDK) program. The theoretical framework that underpinned my study is post-colonial theory and Foucault’s post-structural concept of “power/knowledge” which offered different perspectives to understand how ECEs’ shaped their perceptions. Key messages from the findings suggest despite challenges within the FDK program, ECEs recognized and acknowledged their complementary roles within the teaching team, and identified the need for professional recognition of their work. The key messages further suggested that principals as the leaders of the school need to have a greater understanding about ECEs’ roles, and the relationship between the educators. The recognition of the role and knowledge that ECEs contribute to FDK programs is crucial in order to facilitate collaboration between the educators within the teaching team.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→