Comparative Analysis of Household Work Contributions and Related Factors of the Elderly between Korea and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we challenge recent apocalyptic rhetoric about idle, burdensome, and dependent older people. Our primary objective is to examine and compare the productive activities of older adults in both Korea and Canada using a broader definition of productivity that included household work. Another objective is to identify and compare the factors related to the participation of household work of older adults in both countries. In order to conduct a comparative culture study two data sets were used; one was the 1999 Survey of Time Use collected by Korean Statistics Office and the other was 1998 Survey of Time Use collected by Canadian Statistics Office. Many countries have been collected a time use survey and used to study labor, welfare, and culture. Total number of 17,730 Korean and 2,729 Canadian between when and 84 were included to analyze the data. It is clear from the results that older people engage in productive behaviors, particularly when the definition of activities is broadened to include unpaid work. However, it is also clear the productive contributions in terms of household work ale lower among older Koreans than among older Canadians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".