Is the right to early intervention being honoured? A study of family experiences with early childhood services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an empirical study of family interactions with childhood disability and early years services in Ontario, Canada, with a focus on whether the right to early intervention is being honoured. International mandates, national legislation, and local policies have increased global awareness of the rights of children to be provided with environments for optimal healthy development and education, including the right to early intervention. The right to early intervention is articulated by the United Nations in several international declarations and conventions. Article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989) was the first convention to use the term disability. It specifically addresses the particular rights of disabled children, with articulation of the right to “enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community” (A.20, s.1, 1990). Further, the CRC clearly states that children have the right to special care and assistance for both the child and the service providers working with the child. Services are to be delivered free of charge in order to ensure that the child has access to education, training, health care, rehabilitation, preparation for employment, and recreation services. In all cases these services must consider the fullest social integration and individual development that is consistent with cultural and spiritual beliefs (A.20, s.2-4).
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".