‘It was just too hard to come back’: unintended policy impacts on work-family balance in the Australian and Canadian non-profit social services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from an international comparative study of changes in the Canadian and Australian non-profit social services sector (NPSS) suggest that conditions within specific sectors of the labour market, in this case the non-profit sector, and the distinctive contexts and ethos operating in these sectors influence the ways that women remain attached, reduce their hours or cut ties to the labour market in an effort to balance work-family dynamics. Drawing on qualitative interview data, this article explores the links between social and industrial relations policy and the strategies women employed in the NPSS to balance work-family demands. The article suggests that the existence or absence of social entitlements and support services may impact more than one generation of women, thus having unanticipated outcomes and shaping the way that multiple groups of women participate in the workforce and larger society or are positioned marginally within them. The article also contributes to debates on comparative welfare regimes and gender inequity in the lives of those working in and using the services of the non-profit sector; a sector that is increasingly viewed as an extension of the state and state policies and the larger welfare regime.
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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".