MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1885669740 · doi:10.25336/p68d0m

Family Models for Earning andCaring: Implications for Child Care and for Family Policy

2009· article· en· W1885669740 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Roderic Beaujot, Zenaida R. Ravanera

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyPreferenceToddlerWork (physics)Diversity (politics)Paid workChild carePsychologyDemographic economicsDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyLabour economicsEconomicsSociologyMedicineNursingWorking hours

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian families have changed, in part due to an economy that provides more work opportunities for women, and a cultural orientation that values equal opportunity and diversity in families. In spite of the change, both quantitative and qualitative evidence suggest a continued preference for mothers to spend considerable time with children, especially in the infant and toddler years. Thus, in an average couple, the presence of young children in the home brings wives to reduce their paid work and husbands to increase their paid work. Our reading of parental preferences suggests an interest in more services for young children in the form of early childhood education and child care, but also an interest in policies that would allow parents to spend more time with children through parental leaves, part-time work with good benefits, and subsidies that supplement market income. Many options available to two-parent families are often less feasible for lone parents, giving a higher priority to 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207