MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Directions and Practices for Implementing Early Care for Children with Developmental Disabilities in the Ukrainian and Swedish ECEC Systems

2024· article· en· W4400550621 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valentyna Tarasun, Nataliia Melnyk, Тетяна Валеріївна Степанова, Tamiliia Dotsevych, Olena Al-Mrayat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUkrainianEarly childhood educationPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthDevelopmental psychologySociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This article explores the strategies and approaches used in Ukraine and Sweden's Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) systems for providing early care to children with developmental disabilities. It examines the similarities and differences in policies, legislation, professional training, family involvement, resource allocation, service provision, integration vs. segregation practices, and cultural attitudes toward disability between the two countries. Methods: This study used questionnaires and surveys, analysis of learning outcomes, performance evaluation, and an expert evaluation method. Results: The authors analyze Ukrainian best practices for implementing early care for children with developmental disabilities. In the example of the Swedish system and the context of a comparative investigation of early care for children with developmental disabilities in the countries under analysis, the authors pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of both systems and distinguished the similarities and differences. The theoretical study allowed the practical perspectives and critical Swedish practices that could be implemented in modern Ukrainian practices, among which the most relevant perspectives are those related to early intervention programs, individualized support plans, and fostering partnerships with community organizations and healthcare providers. Research Limitation: The experimental part of the study included a relatively small sample size (50 respondents) and was characterized by a short duration (three months). This may limit the ability to generalize the results. Conclusions: Additionally, the emphasis on inclusive curriculum and environments, as well as professional development opportunities for educators on inclusive practices, could significantly enhance modern Ukrainian practices in early care for children with developmental disabilities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207