Child care for young children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: More than half (56%) of Canadian children aged 0 to 5 years are in non-parental child care, but data on child care attendance among children with disabilities is limited. This study examines child care participation among young children with disabilities in Canada, with a focus on different disability types. Data and methods: Analyses were conducted on 1,189 children aged 0 to 5 years identified with disabilities from Statistics Canada's 2023 Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements - Children with Long-term Conditions and Disabilities. Rates of child care participation, difficulties finding child care, difficulties within child care, and whether parents reported that their child had ever been denied a child care space because of their condition were examined. Logistic regression models tested for differences in the main child care arrangement and difficulty finding child care based on the child's disability while controlling for sociodemographic variables. Results: Among children aged 0 to 5 years with disabilities, 45% attended a daycare centre, preschool, centre de la petite enfance, or before or after school care as their main child care arrangement; 17% attended another type of child care, such as a family child care home or care by a relative; and 38% did not regularly attend non-parental child care. The parents of nearly half of children with disabilities reported difficulty finding a child care arrangement, particularly for children with emotional conditions. Close to 1 in 10 parents of children with disabilities who were using child care reported that their child had been denied a child care space because of their condition. Interpretation: These findings highlight the need for information to support inclusive policies, practices, and resources for children with disabilities within the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".