WORKING TO EXIT POVERTY WHILE CARING FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN VIETNAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the implementation of economic reforms in 1986, levels of urbanization, industrialization, and women's labour force participation have increased in Vietnam. This article focuses on the experiences of parents in Vietnam and how labour and social conditions affect their ability to work and exit poverty while caring for their children's health and development. We interviewed a sample of 147 parents in Ho Chi Minh City using in-depth, semi-structured questionnaires. Sixty-three percent of parents had faced loss of income or promotions or had difficulty retaining jobs because they had to care for children. Fifty-eight percent of parents lost income while caring for their sick children because they had to take unpaid leave from work to care for their children or because they had to decrease productivity if they were able to continue working. Fifty percent of parents with school-age children experienced barriers to helping with homework, to attending meetings, or to participating in other aspects of their children's education. The aftermath of the Vietnamese – American War affected parents through loss of extended family members, limiting access to a major traditional source of support. The war had affected other parents by preventing them from completing their education, which left them with job choices that offer little or no work benefits. Although Vietnam has made significant progress in providing early childhood care and education and legislating labour laws, working families’ experiences demonstrate the need to ensure that paid leave and work flexibility policies are available and implemented in all work sectors and to expand affordable, quality child care in order to help low-income working parents in Vietnam meet work demands and exit poverty while meeting their children's needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".