A case study approach : exploring socially inclusive programming for toddlers with Down Syndrome through a relationship lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This instrumental case study set out to examine the toddler room of one child care centre (centre X) deemed as providing inclusive child care for toddlers with Down Syndrome (DS). Through use of both interview and observation tools this study sought to answer four particular research questions. These questions included: (1) To what extent is this centre providing socially inclusive child care for toddlers with DS? (2) What strategies do ECEs in this centre use to include toddlers with DS in socially meaningful opportunities with their peers? (3) How do parents of children with and without DS perceive their child's classroom to be an inclusive environment (4) How do parents of children with and without DS recognize social inclusion to be a primary goal in their child's development during toddlerhood? After analyzing the rich set of data collected during the interview and observation process results demonstrated that each of the four research questions were affirmatively answered. More specifically, results demonstrated that not only were the ECEs in the toddler room providing C01 with socially meaningful opportunities but relationship formation among all children, typically developing or not, was something that was also highly valued and supported by these ECEs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".