Models of Earning and Caring: Trends in Time-use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families may be defined as people who share resources and care for each other. These earning and caring activities have undergone change, especially in terms of the de-linking of gender to their division in families. After considering the basis of change in families, in the economy and in models of earning and caring, this paper updates the average hours of paid and unpaid work of women and men, based on the time use surveys of 1986, 1992, 1998 and 2005. The focus is on gender as well as marital, parental and employment status over the life course. Total productive activity, increases for both men and women over the categories of “unmarried no children” to “married no children” to married parent.” We also identify five models of the division of work: complementary-traditional, complementary-gender reversed, women’s double burden, men’s double burden, and collaborative (or shared roles). While the complementary-traditional model is declining, it still represents a third of couples. Women’s double burden is the second largest category, representing 27% of couples in 2005, with men’s double burden representing another 11%. The shared roles account for about a quarter of couples. We propose that equal opportunities in the broader society are relevant to this change, as is social policy and the aspirations for relationships based on mutuality and sharing rather than complementary roles. Besides the push for equality of opportunity in access to education and work, there has been push for change at work in the direction of work-life balance, and change in men’s involvement in housework and child care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".