MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967794651 · doi:10.1080/00472330080000471

Women's work and social reproduction in Thailand

2000· article· en· W1967794651 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Asia · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureHegemonyIndustrialisationWork (physics)Women's workReproductionSocial reproductionSociologySubsistence economyIndigenousValuation (finance)EconomicsEconomyGender studiesPolitical scienceGeographySocial sciencePoliticsMarket economySocial capitalAgricultureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the changes in women's work in two northern Thai villages in the transition from subsistence to market economy. Instead of examining the impact of the economic changes on women's work adjustments, the study focusses on the effects of culture in buffering these changes. It borrows from Gramsci's concept of hegemony to understand how the traditional Thai culture influences the manner in which women's work compensates for men's frequent absence from the family farm to seek employment in the cities. Their strategies in taking on additional duties and the de-valuation of their own contribution reinforce the patriarchal social system and bolster the subsistence family farm economy. What was the impact of industrialization on women's work? There is no simple or single answer…' (Tilly & Scott, 1987, p. 227)

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.258 · 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