MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385949904 · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1241618

Inclusion in Quebec childcare centers: financial support, adaptation, and training

2023· article· en· W4385949904 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carmen Dionne, Annie Paquet, Colombe Lemire, Stéphanie Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresEducation and Early Childhood DevelopmentFonds de Recherche du Québec - Société et culture
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Government (linguistics)SubsidyScheduleMedical educationAdaptation (eye)BusinessPsychological interventionPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Inclusion in childcare centers involves a support system that includes funding policies, inclusive practices and access to ongoing training. The province of Quebec (Canada) benefits from a network of subsidized childcare services for children from birth to 5 years old. Although two financial measures support educational childcare centers welcoming children with disabilities, there is a lack of knowledge about how these measures are used. Research questions The research questions are: (1) How do childcare centers use financial measures to support inclusion? (2) What adaptations are made in childcare centers? and (3) What is the ongoing training of educators to support inclusion? Method This research presents the results of an online survey completed by 94 childcare management staff and 154 childcare educators. The survey was developed using a two-way process involving the researchers along with representatives from government ministries and agencies and childcare management staff. Results Results reveal that just over half of management staff request financial measures for all children with special needs and does so mainly to hire additional and specialized human resources and replace staff in meetings with specialized services. The financial measures are perceived to meet material adaptation needs better than those for human resources. Adaptations made by educators relate to instructions, individual interventions, equipment, group activities, physical environment, and schedule and routines. Over half the educators report that adaptations involving group activities and schedules and routines are the most difficult to implement. Less than half the managers and educators had received ongoing training on inclusive practices. Issues addressed during such training include commonly recognized interventions based on diagnoses, collaboration with parents, collaboration with partner agencies or institutions, instructions, individual interventions, group activities, equipment, physical environment, and schedules and routines. Discussion Results are discussed in terms of (1) needs met and funding model, and (2) dimensions of quality inclusive practices such as leadership of childcare management staff, training and professional development, collaboration with health and specialized social services, learning environments and partnership with families.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EducationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207