MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412822103 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-95151-0_12

Precarious Status Families’ Access to Early Childhood Services in a Sanctuary City: The Case of Toronto, Canada

2025· book-chapter· en· W4412822103 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judith K. Bernhard, Julie E. E. Young, Luin Goldring

Bibliographic record

VenueIMISCOE research series · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of LethbridgeToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canada is signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which proclaims that all children, regardless of family legal status, are entitled to basic public services. Many migrant families, however, cannot access such services. We analyse systematic exclusions faced by precarious status families (PSFs). These include at least one member, parent or child, without permanent immigration status. In this literature review, we examine such exclusionary processes in Toronto, where the Access TO policy aims to promote access without fear of deportation. Our main questions are: What are the effects on PSFs of this tension between universal versus limited rights? How does this tension affect actual access to services for children in PSFs? Focusing on childbirth, childcare, and parenting programmes, we found that, despite access goals, in practice, children are often deprived of services because of their parents’ status. We discuss reasons for shortcomings in actual access.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.377 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIMISCOE research seriesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207