L’impact de la politique conservatrice de réforme du financement des services de garde sur la pauvreté et l’inégalité au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent article, nous proposons une analyse préliminaire de la réforme de politique proposée par le gouvernement conservateur qui consiste à remplacer le financement des services de garde par une subvention annuelle de 1200$ par enfant âgé de moins de 6 ans, versée directement aux parents. Nous analysons l’impact qu’aurait cette politique si le gouvernement du Québec choisissait de diminuer le financement public actuel des services de garde dans le futur. Bien que les effets sur la pauvreté et l’inégalité dans la population en général ne soient pas très importants, ceux-ci prennent de l’ampleur lorsque la population visée par ces politiques est considérée, c’est-à-dire les couples avec enfants et les mères monoparentales. Dans le cas de ces dernières, nous prévoyons des augmentations pouvant aller jusqu’à 60 % de la pauvreté observée si nous utilisons un indice qui capte toutes les dimensions de la pauvreté. This article proposes a preliminary analysis of the policy reform proposed by the conservative government which replaces the financing of childcare services by an annual payment of 1200 per child aged 6 and under, an amount paid directly to parents. The article analyses the impact of the possibility that the Québec government might reduce the actual public financing of childcare. While the impacts on poverty and inequality in the population in general are not very important, they are more important for couples with children and single mothers. In the latter case, the authors foresee an increase of up to 60% of poverty if all dimensions of poverty are included.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".