MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Job quality in Quebec and the United Kingdom: Trends by sex and family status, 1998–2008

2012· article· en· W2077934398 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luc CLOUTIER‐VILLENEUVE

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Labour Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyDemographic economicsWork (physics)KingdomQuality (philosophy)Parental leaveFamily LeavePsychologyPolitical scienceDemographyEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Using a typology combining pay, hours of work, skill levels and job stability, the author compares the trends in quality of employment between women and men (with and without childcare responsibilities) in Quebec and the United Kingdom over the decade 1998–2008. Although the gender gap narrowed significantly among working parents with young children, the gap between mothers and fathers in this group remained much smaller in Quebec than in the United Kingdom by the end of the period. The author attributes this pattern to Quebec's healthier economic environment, more women‐friendly social policies, and fathers' significantly shorter hours of work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Labour ReviewSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207