MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387616300 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2023.226

Parents, Are You Getting Your Money’s Worth at Your Childcare Center?

2023· article· en· W4387616300 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jonelle Chan, Dale Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionQuality (philosophy)Child careBusinessCenter (category theory)Space (punctuation)Demographic economicsEconomic growthNursingMedicineEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, mothers were the primary caregiver and were expected to stay at home to care for their child. In today’s society, there is an increasing trend of dual-earner families where both individuals contribute to the household income. This created a demand for childcare services such as preschools, childcare centers, and family daycare homes. Due to the high demand, a majority of parents had difficulty obtaining childcare services and it brought into question whether parents are still able to fully assess each available childcare centers’ quality and cost, or if they are forced to select any center with available space. Additionally, considering its high demand, it’s uncertain whether centers are still providing high quality care at their price points. This study investigated if the cost of childcare at licensed childcare facilities in cities and districts under the jurisdiction of Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) align with their structural qualities 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCIT Environmental Public Health JournalSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207