It was twenty years ago today...March 8, 1986 Martha Friendly The Task Force on Child Care: A landmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
anniversary of the Report of the federal government’s first and only Task Force on Child Care. The key recommendation of the “Katie Cooke Task Force ” was a universal system of child care – co‐funded by federal and provincial governments. It would have affordable parent fees, would be designed and managed by the provinces under national standards and would be built through a gradual increase in the supply of regulated child care until the year 2001 when it would serve all children and families. The cost at that time, the Task Force calculated, would be $11.3 billion. On March 8, 1986, Walter McLean, Brian Mulroney’s Minister Responsible for the Status of Women (to whom the Task Force reported) marked IWD by holding a press conference to release the Task Force’s findings. Mr. McLean said, “ As we look at this Report, we have our eye on the year 2000. I’m personally committed to finding a workable solution to Canada’s child care challenge ” (Globe and Mail, 1986a). Mandate, composition and methods The mandate of the Task Force was to “examine and assess the need for child care and parental leave in Canada, as well as the adequacy of current systems, and make recommendations on the federal government’s role in the development of a national system of quality child care ” (Cooke, London, Edwards and Rose‐Lizée, 1986: iii). The intention was to focus on “non‐parental care which supplements that which is provided by parents”, not care by parents themselves. The Task Force on Child Care was set up by Pierre Trudeau’s government in 1984 to report to then‐
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.019 |
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".