Self‐Employment as a Response to the Double Day for Women and Men in Canada*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malgré une augmentation récente de la participation masculine aux tâches de la maison, les femmes assurent encore la plus grande partie de ce travail, que ce soit les soins apportés aux enfants, le nettoyage, la cuisine, les courses, la gestion financière, l'éducation ou les conseils personnels. Toutefois, de nombreuses femmes mènent une activité professionnelle rémunérée, qui vient s'ajouter à leurs responsabilités au sein du foyer. Cet article pose la question de savoir si les femmes choisissent le travail autonome comme un moyen d'alléger quelque peu les pressions rigides que leur impose leur «double travail». Alors que les femmes semblent effectivement se tourner vers le travail autonome pour cause de conflits entre travail et vie de famille, les hommes ne semblent pas guidés par les mêmes raisons. Despite recent increases in the amount of work done in the home by men, most of this work is still performed by women. These duties range from child care, cleaning, and cooking to shopping, financial management and domestic discipline and counselling. Yet many women also hold down paid jobs in addition to their domestic responsibilities. This paper investigates whether women turn to self‐employment as a way of introducing some flexibility into the rigid pressures from both sides of this “double day.” While women do appear to turn to self‐employment as one way of coping with conflicting family and work pressures, the same is not true for men.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".