MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4299671300 · doi:10.46692/9781447330158.007

Cultures of in-home childcare

2016· other· en· W4299671300 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of in-home childcare has shifted in recent decades. It has shifted as a result of welfare state restructuring, which is attributed to both changes in policy mechanisms and ideas about the objectives of social policy. The policy structures and discourses that shape in-home childcare differ across countries, and also over time, to create distinct cultures of in-home childcare. As with other countries around the world, in Australia, the UK and Canada, these cultures of care are reflective of ideas about the most appropriate forms of care for young children. These include both who should provide care, and how it should be provided. This chapter brings together findings from earlier chapters to understand the dynamic of these distinct care cultures. To do so, it considers the embedded norms and assumptions about the objectives of, and responsibility for, early childhood education and care (ECEC), and the role of migration policy in facilitating childcare in the home. The distinctive cultures of care are linked to the histories of childcare policy (Chapter Two), policy systems and practices (Chapter Three), rhetoric and rationales for different forms of ECEC (Chapter Four), and the reinforcement of inequalities in the provision of in-home childcare (Chapter Five). In each of the study countries, the ‘problem’ of in-home childcare is represented in different ways in policy debate and discourse, and this analysis is informed by both publicly available policy documents and statements as well as interviews conducted with key stakeholders in each county. Policy debates revolve primarily around the three inequalities explored in the previous chapter: gender, class/income and race/migration. Consistent with recent contributions to the field of gender, ideas and inequality (Béland, 2009; Orloff and Palier, 2009), this chapter draws on policy debates about inequality in order to identify discourses that reflect distinct cultural ideas about the provision of in-home childcare. First, the chapter discusses the concept of ‘care culture’, how it has been used in other cross-national research, and its potential to explain differences in care policies and practices. There is a need to go beyond traditional comparative welfare state theories to understand variation in in-home childcare in the study countries. Most important, the concept of ‘care culture’ focuses on cultural dimensions of the welfare state, although it does not ignore the importance of structural factors shaping outcomes, including gender and class inequalities produced through different care regimes (Kremer, 2007; Williams, 2010b).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207