Production and Reproduction: The Issues Involved in Reconciling Work and Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quebec legislation in occupational health contains a measure that gives pregnant workers the right to demand healthy and safe work conditions so that they can continue working while they are pregnant. About one-third of pregnant workers exercise this right every year. Nonetheless, even though the legislation's goal is to favor continued employment, more than 75 percent of the female workers who are eligible for protective reassignment are, in fact, not reassigned to other work stations or tasks, and instead must stop working. The results presented here stem from research intended to improve our understanding of the difficulties that arise in the workplace when the organization of work has to be reconciled with pregnancy. In telling us their experiences, the 51 pregnant workers we interviewed gave us their definition of "reconciliation." They did this by identifying the elements and areas of their occupational and family responsibilities that hindered or favored this reconciliation. They thus brought to light the predominant role that social relationships play in these situations. The comments of the women we met shed light on work conditions and organizations whose characteristics, once identified, suggest some of the changes needed to make this reconciliation possible.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".