Are Citizens Responsive to the Regulatory State? The Effect of Regulation on Evaluations of Early Childhood Education and Care ( <scp>ECEC</scp> )
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Public service delivery has increasingly involved mixed markets, with for‐profit, not‐for‐profit, and government‐delivered programs. In such contexts, regulation can protect the public interest by enhancing safety, expanding consumer choice, or improving the quality of goods or services. In this article, we explore how citizens experience varying regulated markets, and whether regulatory stringency shapes citizen perceptions of service quality in the context of early childhood education and care (ECEC) services in the United States. We rely on automated textual analysis of online Google reviews of ECEC alongside a dataset of state policy stringency that tracks whether states allow for unlicensed care environments. Using a regression discontinuity design to test the impact of regulatory systems on reviews of care, we find evidence that parents in states with less stringent regulations are more likely to post negative reviews and express anger and anxiety, relative to parents in states with robust regulatory regimes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it