MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W97295436

Family Day Care: International Perspectives on Policy, Practice and Quality

2003· book· en· W97295436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann Mooney, June Statham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDay careUnit (ring theory)Agency (philosophy)Library scienceSociologyMedicineNursingPsychologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preface. 1. Across the Spectrum: An Introduction to Family Day Care Internationally. June Statham and Ann Mooney, Thomas Coram Research Unit, London. Part 1. Policy and Organisation. 1. Across the Spectrum: An Introduction to Family Day Care Internationally. June Statham and Ann Mooney, Thomas Coram Research Unit, London. 2. Home-like? Some Unique features of the Emerging Family Day Care Provision in Hungary. Marta Korintus, National Institute for Family and Social Policy, Budapest. 3. Carving out a niche? The Work of Tagesmutter in the New Germany. Ulrike Gelder, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. 4. Family Day Care in New Zealand: Training, Quality and Professional Status. Elizabeth Everiss, Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, and Carmen Dalli, Victoria University of Wellington. 5. The Development of Childminding Networks in Britain: Sharing the Caring: Sue Owen, National Children's Bureau, UK. 6. Family Day Care in Israel: Policy, Quality and the Daily Experiences of Children. Miriam K. Rosenthal, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Part 2. Understandings of Family Care. 7. What it Means to be a Childminder: Work or Love? Ann Mooney, Thomas Coram Research Unit, London. 8. Agency and Ethics: Family Day Care Providers' Perspectives on Quality. Irene Kyle, independent researcher, Canada. 9. The Everyday Life of Children in Family Day Care as Seen by the Carers. Malene Karlsson, Family Day Care Expert, Sweden. 10. Family Day Care in France, Liane Mozere, University of Metz. Part 3. Carers and Parents. 11. Provider and Parent Perspectives of Family Day Care for 'Children in Need': A Third Party Inbetween. June Statham, Thomas Coram Research Unit, London. 12. Partnership with Providers? Why Parents from Diverse Cultural Backgrounds Choose Family Day Care. Sarah Wise and Ann Sanson, Australian Institute of Family Studies. 13. Setting Child Care Standards with Respect for Cultural Differences. Who Says What is Quality? Kathy Modigliani, Family Child Care Project, Arlington, Massachusetts. 14. Conclusion: Whither Family Day Care? Peter Moss, Thomas Coram Research Unit, London. References. Index.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207