MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942438120 · doi:10.25336/p6tg89

Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction

2014· article· en· W1942438120 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Susan A. McDaniel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Studies in Population · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionInequalityProduction (economics)SociologyGender studiesGeographyEconomicsEcologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a focus on gendered lives, this edited book takes a dual stance not only in analyzing changes in gendered lives, but considering as well how further change towards greater gender equality might be achieved.The Editors aim to push what they term the "well-worked field" of gender inequality in new, innovative, and timely directions.To achieve this, the chapters in this volume all take a life-course perspective, relying on longitudinal analyses.Their approach is dynamic, in analyzing how both individuals and social institutions "do gender."Time, technology, and social, familial, and policy changes are taken into consideration.The geographic focus is largely the UK.The book is the product of a five-year research initiative, where researchers from varying disciplines with different theoretical stances and reliance on different methodologies met to together attempt to answer a set of questions about gendered lives.The presumption of this process was that the sum of the interactions over time would exceed that of individual efforts.The book is divided into three sections, preceded by an unnumbered introduction: gendered lives unfolding across time, gender inequalities in the household and workplace, and gender inequalities in a changing world.Eight chapters comprise the book, all written by well established researchers, mostly from the UK.There is no concluding chapter.The introduction highlights the overarching stance of the book, describes trends in gender inequality and equality in the UK, and then summarizes some of the major findings of the research, focusing on the unexpected.Of the latter, two are brought to the fore in the introduction.First is the finding from research by John Hobcraft and Wendy Sigle-Rushton (Chapter 1), based on two-point-in-time analyses of national studies in Britain, comparing cohorts born in 1958 with those born in 1970 to see whether there are common predictors of adult disadvantage by gender.Adult outcomes are consistently found to be linked to childhood experiences, but the surprise finding is that although women are more likely to be disadvantaged as adults than men-a well known reality-the mechanisms that link childhood experiences with adult outcomes are found to be similar for men and women.This suggests that a complex interplay is involved of gender with social institutions and factors, with the need for a more nuanced approach to capturing the dynamics of gender inequalities across the life course.The second unexpected finding highlighted in the introduction comes from multi-method research by Fran Bennett, Jerome De Henau, Susan Himmelweit, and Sirin Sung on the processes by which heterosexual couples work out their household finances (Chapter 4).Little is known about how household income is shared by couples, although it is widely presumed, particularly by policy, that income is shared equally.What is found is that gender roles in couples matter to how satisfied couples are with their household income.For both men and women, the job of the man matters more.Other interesting findings also emerge from the research reported in this book.For example, in examining changing career trajectories of men and women over time, Erzsebet Bukodi, Shirley Dex, and Heather Joshi

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Studies in PopulationSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207