10 Working-Time Regimes, Flexibility, and Work-Life Balance: Gender Equality and Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter I examine a central component of working-time regimes – the legal regulation of daily and weekly hours of paid employment – and how the Canadian federal working-time regime reinforces a gendered division of paid and unpaid labour and contributes to increased stress experienced by working mothers in particular. I begin by introducing the concept of working-time regime and describing its central elements and focusing on the legal rules that regulate daily and weekly working time. Next, I briefly describe the key elements of the hours-of-work rules of the federal working-time regime. This sketch is followed by a discussion of the distribution of paid and unpaid work, emphasizing the gendered nature of this distribution, in Canada. Having set out the conceptual, legal, and empirical aspects of the federal hours-of-work regime, I turn to public policy dimensions of the lack of fit between a working-time regime that was developed in the 1960s and contemporary working-time practices, focusing on how flexibility and work-life balance are defined, and how public policy trade-offs are identified, measured, and evaluated. Once again, the emphasis is on the gendered nature of these trade-offs, which is further explored in a summary of the findings of a major study of family-work conflict in Canada. One of the goals of this discussion is to re-examine the persistent ways in which the dichotomy of family and work is perpetuated by the assumption that paid work and life/family are independent. I conclude the chapter by offering proposals for reconciling work and family life in a manner that promotes gender equality, a caring society, and social solidarity, and in doing so seek to contribute to the feminist-informed discussion of how paid work, family, and life can be achieved.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".