MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3186540263 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v14i1.72237

Gender Disparities in the Labour Market? Examining the COVID-19 Pandemic in Alberta

2021· article· en· W3186540263 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay M. Tedds, John Baker, Kourtney Koebel

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueEmployment and Welfare Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesAustralian Government
Mots-clésCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Demographic economicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineVirologyOutbreak

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic generated large labour market disparities between men and women; however, in Alberta these differences did not persist beyond summer 2020. Instead, the pandemic continues to persistently and negatively affect the labour market patterns of parents with young children, regardless of the parent’s gender. This finding should guide policy-makers when planning for the province’s economic recovery. Using data from Alberta up to and including the December 2020 release of the Labour Force Survey, we do not find evidence that the “she-cession” continued into Alberta’s second round of health restriction measures. Instead, we find that school transitions to virtual learning, daycare closures, and parents opting for online learning resulted in profound and persistent effects on workers with young children compared to workers without children. Recovery plans focusing solely on gender may be therefore insufficient for addressing the effects that different groups have experienced during the pandemic. Policy-makers should target policies towards both mothers and fathers with young children. Moreover, new policies should be aimed at supporting parents so that they do not face additional stress over how they will pay their bills and feed their families if they lose their jobs or must reduce their hours to stay home to care for their children. The Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB) should remain in place until all threats of school and child-care facility closures are past. Alberta has received approximately $144 million in direct CRCB subsidies, but the weekly amount of $500 per recipient is less than minimum wage in a full-time job, meaning parents still may be unable to pay bills and meet their families’ needs. The province should top up the CRCB for lower- or single-income parents. Employment Insurance benefits should be made available to parents who quit their jobs to take care of their children as a direct result of public health measures. As well, those parents with young children who receive welfare payments should not be required to search for jobs while public health measures remain in place. The Alberta government needs to work together with the federal government to provide adequate support to daycare centres and schools to cover the added pandemic-related costs. Alberta received $87 million in federal funding to help with those costs and has itself contributed $17.8 million to extra health and safety measures in daycare centres. This is money well spent, for when parents feel their children are in a safe place, they will not keep them at home and jeopardize or lose their own employment. However, the end of the pandemic will not mean an abrupt end to its effects on the labour market. Even though this paper finds no differences in the situations of employed men and women, the latter may experience more labour market friction in the long run, due to missed opportunities for on-the-job training and work experience. One benefit that can come out of the labour market disruptions caused by the pandemic is a renewed focus on addressing pre-pandemic inequities between men and women with children. From this perspective, Alberta should celebrate and embrace the recent federal commitment to a Canada-wide early learning and child care plan.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,247

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,221
Tête enseignante GPT0,448
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsMême sujetEmployment and Welfare StudiesTravaux en français237 207