MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1501405069

Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics

2014· article· en· W1501405069 sur OpenAlex
Judith Galtry, Barbara Sturmfels

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueWomen's Studies Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTributeUnpaid workParliamentBreastfeedingSociologyFeminismWork (physics)Social scienceLawPolitical scienceGender studiesMedicineEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

COUNTING ON MARILYN WARING: NEW ADVANCES IN FEMINIST ECONOMICS Edited by Margunn Bjornholt and Ailsa McKay Toronto, Canada: Demeter Press, 2014 ISBN 978 1 927335 2 7 7The treatment of breastfeeding in Counting on Marilyn WaringIn 1988, New Zealand feminist and ex Member of Parliament, Marilyn Waring, published a groundbreaking book called Counting for Nothing (published in other countries as If Women Counted). This identified the exclusion of women's unpaid work from national accounting systems, notably the Gross Domestic Product measure (GDP). Waring's central claim was that women's unpaid work - including reproductive and care work - needed to be valued and 'counted'. Significantly, Waring identified breastfeeding and the production of human milk as an important component of women's unpaid and unrecognised 'work' and one that needed to be counted. At the time of her writing this was a relatively radical concept, at least in the English language literature.In 2014, as a tribute to Waring's pioneering work in developing and popularising a feminist framework for thinking about economics, Demeter Press has published an edited collection entitled Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, which contains 17 essays on feminist economics that build on and advance Waring's work. While Waring's analysis of the lack of value attached to women's unpaid work is wide ranging, the specific focus of our review is on Waring's contribution to identifying breastfeeding as an important component of women's unpaid 'work' and how this has been addressed in this 2014 tribute compilation.According to Waring (1988), human milk is a valuable commodity, and the value of time involved in its production should be counted as part of GDP. Waring argued that the failure to value breastfeeding exemplifies the invisibility of women's work and is part of a worldwide pattern of undervaluing women's economic contribution.An important figure in furthering this understanding of breastfeeding as a form of unrecognised 'work' - and one that is time costly - is fellow Antipodean Dr Julie Smith, an economist at the Australian Centre for Economic Research on Health (Australian National University) and one of the contributors to this collection on Waring's work.In her chapter entitled Making Mothers' Milk Count Smith argues that although Counting for Nothing 'was not the first call to acknowledge the economic value of mother's milk and breastfeeding, ... it was the first to demand its proper valuation and to insist that the costs of breastfeeding to women be accounted for.' (p. 214). According to Smith, prior to the 1990s there existed 1) a 'mothers' milk equals cows' milk' approach to valuing breastfeeding and 2) the view that mothers' time involved in breastfeeding is free/without cost (p. 215). Since the 1990s, thanks largely to Waring's 1988 critique, there has been a challenge to these misconceptions. Smith also describes how in the Australian context Waring's work has inspired and supported breastfeeding advocacy as well as influencing policy. Yet, despite several high level reports and extensive advocacy, the value of human milk production has still not been included in Australia's economic statistics. This also holds true for New Zealand.Smith contends that 'excluding human milk production from GDP means that Australia's policymakers focus on promoting the activities of commercial firms producing less than $200 million of infant food products per year, whilst giving no importance to protecting household production of human milk worth $2 billion a year or more. It is difficult to see why disrupting the system by comparing these values is undesirable, or why it overburdens policy analysis to show the large magnitude of non market production of infant food' (p. 222).This oversight is also relevant at the international level. As Smith points out, two of the world's leading economists, Nobel prize-winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen (along with Jean-Paul Fitoussi) in a 2009 review of GDP measurement cited human milk production as an example of how a focus on GDP-biased policymaking failed to account for women's unpaid work of breastfeeding and the economic value of this unique food for infants and young children. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,582
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,736

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,274 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle