La politique québécoise Les enfants au cœur de nos choix : Un pari audacieux néanmoins gagnant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: After establishing an initial family policy (with pro-birth undertones) in 1988, Quebec changed direction in 1997 by enacting new child-focused measures, i.e. Les enfants au cœur de nos choix. By offering family allowances, low-cost school child care services and the promise of a better parental insurance plan, the new policy pursued three objectives: promoting early childhood development and equal opportunities, facilitating a work-family balance and ensuring increased aid to low-income families. In 1997 the policy surprised many, given the substantial budget deficit of the time. The government was shifting from a policy based on population growth to a generous socio-democratic strategy. Objectives: After presenting the historical context that gave rise to the implementation of an explicit family policy in Quebec, this article explains the demographic, political and economic circumstances in play prior to the adoption of the new child-focused policy.Methodology: The analysis of the Quebec family policy presented in this article is largely based on the author's observations and her analysis of this policy in her career.Results: The analysis reveals that change in family policy to be a bold gamble, one that has no equivalent in North America. Conclusions: Close examination of various studies analyzing the impacts of the policy suggests that the gamble can be considered to have been a success, one that has led to significant advances for women.Contribution: This article provides a socio-historical reflection on the Quebec family policy and explains the context - demographic, political and economic – in which it was made and during the 1990s, its transition from a natalist policy to a socio-democratic policy that collectivizes reproductive work with young children. In addition, it provides an interpretation of the meaning and scope of this policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".