MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987923587 · doi:10.1177/0143831x01222005

Gender, Segmentation and the Standard Employment Relationship in Canadian Labour Law, Legislation and Policy

2001· article· en· W1987923587 on OpenAlexaffabout
Judy Fudge, Leah F. Vosko

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic and Industrial Democracy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeLegislationLabour economicsNorm (philosophy)Market segmentationLabour lawEconomicsGender equalityOrder (exchange)Division of labourSociologyPolitical scienceLawMarket economyGender studiesMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using gender as its analytic lens, this article examines segmentation in the Canadian labour market by focusing on the standard employment relationship. It illustrates how standard employment was crafted upon a speii gender division of paid and unpaid labour, the male breadwinner norm, and was only available to a narrow segment of workers. To this end, it traces how from the lOSOs the standard employment relationship ws supelemanted by a growth in jobs associated with, and filed pnrimaly by, women workers and it shows how women's increasing labour market participation in the late 196Os and early 1970s shaped demands for equality in employment policies. Since the 1 9SOs, a deterioration in the standard employment relationship has undermined both demands for and the basis of gender equality strategies and the article concludes by raising the question of the normative basis for regulating employment in order to Move towards strategies for reregulation.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0380.034
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations82
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic and Industrial DemocracySame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207