Bibliographic record
Abstract
La combination du travail payé et la maternité est difficile parce que les institutions sociales sont basées sur la supposition que les deux sont toujous mutuellement exclusifs. Les mères qui travaillent gèrent la tension entre le travail et la maternité chaque jour, et quand elles le font, elles établissent des nouveaux modèles sociaux. Cette recherche présente les résultats d'une étude de 21 mères qui travaillent de la classe moyenne et soutient qu'elles ont été incapables de challenger l'organisation punitive du travail et de la maternité. Ces mères utilisent la métaphore de l’“équilibre” pour décrire comment elles gèrent la tension. Cependant, leurs récits des difficultés de gérer la maternité lorsque les méres travaillent décrit une autre histoire. En fait, l’“équilibre” est une idéologie qui fonctionne afin d'obscurcir la contradiction entre le travail et la maternité. Combining paid work and motherhood is difficult because social institutions are still based on the assumption that these are mutually exclusive. Working mothers manage the tension between work and motherhood daily, and as they do, they establish new social patterns. This paper reports on the findings of a study of 21 middle‐class working mothers and argues that they have been unable to challenge the punitive organization of work and motherhood. These mothers use the metaphor of “balance” to describe how they manage the tension. However, their narratives of the difficulties of managing working motherhood tell a different story. In fact, “balance” is an ideology, which functions to obscure the contradiction between work and motherhood.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".