Early childhood educators’ experiences with and perspectives of the Early Learning and Child Care Supplement in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This major research paper presents findings from a qualitative study with eight early childhood educators working in licensed childcare settings in St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador. The study used the political economy of care and feminist ethics of care theory to interpret participants' experiences with and perspectives of the Early Learning and Child Care (ELCC) Supplement in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Based on participants' views, this study's primary findings suggest that participants perceived the ELCC Supplement as an incentive or bonus to top off the low wages of an early childhood educator. Second, participants articulated a shared appreciation of some features of the ELCC Supplement. At the same time, they asserted several dislikes. As we dug deeper, participants reported a significant number of abuses in the distribution of the ELCC Supplement. Finally, the participants shared their thoughts on recommendations for changes to be made to the ELCC Supplement. Key words: Early learning and child care supplement, early childhood educator, early childhood education and care, childcare, care, carework, political economy of care, feminist ethics of care
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".