Preservice early childhood educator perspectives of educator relations with primary caregivers : a survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little research about the functional creation and maintenance of effective family and childcare relationships and less about PSECE perspectives on educator relations with primary caregivers. Little is known about what PSECE think about their future work with primary caregivers and how they come to have these perspectives, which may eventually be the basis for their practice with primary caregivers. In light of this context, this exploratory study utilized a survey to gather the views of public post-secondary Preservice Early Childhood Education students (PSECEs) (N=111) in Vancouver, B.C., concerning their perspectives on educator relations with primary caregivers. An analysis of the survey data using SPSS statistical software showed that most participants were born outside Canada. The participants' perspectives on educator relations with primary caregivers mostly aligned with traditional educator-focused interactions. The participants indicated that the Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) they learned in their Early Childhood Education (ECE) coursework significantly influenced their perspectives on educator relationships with primary caregivers. Understanding these perspectives contributes to refining a curriculum that supports PSECEs in developing the attitudes and skills necessary to create and maintain supportive relationships with primary caregivers, fostering optimal outcomes for children in childcare settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".