MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098084586 · doi:10.1177/0192513x04273583

Models of Time Use in Paid and Unpaid Work

2005· article· en· W2098084586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnpaid workPaid workWork (physics)WifeMetric (unit)Interpersonal communicationPsychologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyLabour economicsEconomicsWorking hoursOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Models of time use need to consider especially the reproductive and productive activities of women and men. For husband-wife families, the breadwinner, one-earner, or complementary-roles model has advantages in terms of efficiency or specialization and stability; however, it is a high-risk model for women and children. The alternate model has been called two-earner, companionship, “new families,” or collaborative in the sense of spouses collaborating in the paid and unpaid work needed to provide for and care for the family. Adopting the common metric of time use to study paid and unpaid work, we find that the complementary-roles model remains the most common, and the “double burden” is the second most frequent; however, there is some evidence of change in the direction of shared-roles arrangements, especially for younger couples with children, when both are employed full-time.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.261 · 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