Employment and child‐care choices in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we examine employment and child‐care choices of two‐parent families with young children in the United States and Canada, using a pooled data set based on recent national surveys in each country. We find that the employment and child‐care choices of Canadian families are similar to those of U.S. families. Estimates of a model of employment and child‐care choices indicate significant effects of child‐care subsidies, child‐care prices, and wage rates on employment and child‐care choices. However, none of these factors helps to explain the differences in employment and child‐care choices between the two countries. Ce mémoire examine le choix de l'emploi et du soin des enfants dans les familles où il y deux parents aux Etats‐Unis et au Canada en utilisant des données d'études récentes dans les deux pays. Il appert que les choix des familles canadiennes sont semblables à ceux des familles américaines. Les calibrations d'un modèle de ces choix montrent les effets significatifs des subventions au soin des enfants, du prix des soins des enfants, et des taux de salaires sur ces choix. Cependant, aucun de ces facteurs n'explique les diffrences dans les patterns de choix entre les deux pays.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".