Rising to the Challenge: Fathers’ Role in the Negotiation of Couple Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to understand the relationship between fatherhood and leisure, we believe that it is important to take a systemic perspective that examines the way in which relationships within the family affect leisure choices. Although the literature on gender and free time offers important insights into the different individual entitlements that women and men have to use time, they put less emphasis on the relationship negotiations that occur within families. We were particularly interested in the way that men in families negotiate couple time with their partners. In this analysis of 14 dual‐earner couples with young children (3–12 years old), we looked at the role that men play in the negotiation of couple time. Specifically, we examined the processes of initiating and scheduling couple time, dealing with expectations of spontaneity and romance, and arranging childcare. We found that in creating couple time, participants faced many challenges including uncertain social support, the stressful demands of daily living, unclear couple time preferences and meanings, and ambivalence regarding their desire for traditional courtship in the context of egalitarian parenting. Fathers played an important role in instigating couple time whereas mothers played a significant role in its implementation; our discussion explores various power dynamics at play in this co‐construction of couple time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".