MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4253044205 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-11189

Organizing for Social Policy Change: Child Care Policy Advocacy in Canada

2015· dissertation· en· W4253044205 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley Cornelisse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsFraming (construction)Political scienceSocial movementPraxisChild carePublic administrationPublic relationsParliamentNursingMedicineLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis applies a feminist political economy framework to the child care policy advocacy movement in Canada.Taking up the campaigns for a federal child care program as an example of social movement advocacy for policy creation and change, this thesis examines how social actors have understood the need for social policy change at the federal level in Canada.I develop a policy history in conjunction with an advocacy history to preface a theorization of child care advocacy according to Tronto's (2011) four phases of care.I develop a method of inquiry that is grounded in the voices of the advocacy movement; I rely on interviews conducted with advocates, researchers, representatives of advocacy organizations, and a Member of Parliament who are organizing to achieve a national child care system which is grounded in the QUAD principles: quality, universality, accessibility, and developmentally appropriate child care available to all children whenever and wherever it is required.This project contributes to an emerging body of literature which seeks to understand the history, approaches, and goals of the child care movement as a 'usable past' which can both strengthen the cognitive praxis of the movement and inform its pursuit of social policy change.This thesis is dedicated to the incredible, unwavering advocates who participated in and informed my study.Thank you for your commitment, your vision of the future of child care in Canada, and your determined belief that a different future is possible.I hope this work is useful to you.I would like to thank my amazing supervisor, Dr. Susan Braedley, for her contributions of time and patience, her wealth of knowledge, accommodating the surely inconvenient Skype meetings, and the early question that has shaped my research and kept me on track since the beginning: "What are you pissed about?"Sincere thanks go to my second reader, Dr. Rebecca Schein for her insights regarding social movements and feminist theory, and her willingness to work with a student

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0570.030
Scholarly communication0.0150.004
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Work Education and Practice→French-language works237,207→