MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248621565 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14656827.v1

LGBTQ parents' experiences with early years environments

2021· preprint· en· W4248621565 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Butac

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphToronto Metropolitan UniversityEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeteronormativityLesbianTransgenderInclusion (mineral)QueerPsychologyHuman sexualityDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This phenomenological study explores LGBTQ parents’ experiences in seeking and in being part of early years environments, such as family support programs and childcare services, in Toronto, Ontario. Literature has shown that heteronormativity plays a significant role in early years environments, thereby, silencing other sexualities. This silencing of sexual minorities adds an additional layer to the process of seeking an early years environment, which involves assessing LGBTQ inclusion of such environments. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with LGBTQ parents to compare their experiences to the literature, and to consider implications for future practice and policy. The sample was found to have generally positive experiences. Collaboration was an important factor in creating more positive experiences for parents. Future research should consider further inclusion of bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals in order to continue to better understand their experiences in early years environments and build upon the knowledge gained here. Keywords: LGBTQ parents, early years environments, family support programs, childcare

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→