MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029037830

How a Canadian program that helps educators 'thrive' not just 'survive' could help address Australia's childcare staff shortage

2022· article· en· W7029037830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRUNE (Research UNE) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageParliamentFeelingEarly childhood educationEarly childhoodPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Turnover
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On Wednesday, federal parliament passed Labor's bill to reduce childcare fees for many Australian families.More affordable childcare for families is great, but it will not solve all the issues in the sector. Schools are not the only ones with a teacher crisis. Early childhood services are also hit with chronic staff shortages.As of October, there were about 6,800 advertised positions for early childhood educators in Australia. The pandemic has not helped. There was a 40% increase in job ads between April 2021 and April 2022.Before COVID-19, there was about 30% annual turnover in the sector, and up to 45% in rural and remote areas. A 2021 union study of more than 3,800 educators revealed 74% said they wanted to leave the sector in the next three years. The top reasons for wanting to leave were excessive workload, low pay and feeling undervalued. This turnover can impact upon children's wellbeing, development and learning.To find out more about the challenges educators face, how it impacts upon their wellbeing and learn from other countries, our international study explored the experiences of early childhood educators around the world. This article looks at the Australian and Canadian components of the study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRUNE (Research UNE)Same topicBiomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207