MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501405069

Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics

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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen's Studies Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributeUnpaid workParliamentBreastfeedingSociologyFeminismWork (physics)Social scienceLawPolitical scienceGender studiesMedicineEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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