MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘If you have a soul, you will volunteer at once’: gendered expectations of duty to care during pandemics

2012· article· en· W1507990033 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLupina Foundation
KeywordsPandemicDutyHealth careWork (physics)SociologyPreparednessSoulPublic relationsPolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)LawMedicineEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duty to care has been identified as a pressing ethical issue in contemporary discussions of pandemic preparedness; however, nuanced discussions of this complicated issue are relatively limited. This article presents historical data from the experience of the 1918 influenza pandemic in Brantford, Ontario in Canada, demonstrating that, in the face of an actual pandemic, the particular construction of duty to care as both moral and gendered meant that women were placed at a greater personal risk during this time. Given that women still dominate the front lines of healthcare work, we argue that it is critical for current stakeholders to reflect on how these historical patterns may be replicated in contemporary pandemic planning and response.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.247 · 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