Atlantis, Volume 29.1, Fall/Winter 2004 Good Work in Canadian Childcare: Complicating the Love/Money Divide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extended interviews with thirty seven experienced and student childcare providers in Vancouver, British Columbia, provide data for an analysis of the love/money dichotomy often used to understand work in childcare. Providers talked both about the pulls between "money" and "love " and about their desire for other rewards from their work. This article uses ideas of workplace democracy and feminist social justice theories to help articulate how childcare work can be understood and supported as good work. RÉSUMÉ De longues entrevues avec 37 étudiantes et travailleuses de garderie chevronnées à Vancouver, en Colombie- Britannique, fournissent les données nécessaires pour faire l'analyse de la dichotomie entre l'amour et l'argent qui est souvent employée pour aider à comprendre le travail en milieu de garderie. Cet article se sert des idées de la démocratie en milieu de travail et de théories féministes sur la justice sociale pour aider à articuler comment le travail de garderie fonctionne et comment il peut être compris et appuyé en tant que travail appréciable. You know it's like, we do this because we love children but we don't do this totally out of the kindness of our heart. This is our job. This is our profession. We went to school for it. We paid dearly for it. We still pay dearly for it because we
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.002 |
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.
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".