Models of Earning and Caring: Determinants of the Division of Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les auteurs examinent les déterminants possibles des modèles de la répartition des revenus et des activités de soins chez les couples canadiens. En utilisant l'Enquête sociale générale—L'emploi du temps (ESG), ils énumèrent cinq modèles de division du travail: complémentaire‐traditionnel, complémentaire‐genre inversé, double tâche de la femme, double tâche de l'homme et rôles partagés. Tandis que le modèle complémentaire‐traditionnel est en déclin, il se retrouve encore chez le tiers des couples. La double tâche de la femme constitue la deuxième catégorie en importance, c'est‐à‐dire qu'on la constate chez 27% des couples en 2005, alors que la double tâche de l'homme représente 11%. Les rôles partagés conviennent à environ un quart des couples. S'inspirant de ces typologies des revenus et des activités de soins, les auteurs analysent l'importance relative du cours de la vie, de même que les facteurs structuraux et culturels en tant que déterminants de la répartition du travail rémunéré ou non chez les couples. Ils constatent que les approches complémentaire‐traditionnelle et double tâche de la femme ont plus de chances de se rencontrer chez les personnes âgées et chez celles qui ont de jeunes enfants. Les modèles alternatifs sont plus courants lorsque les femmes ont de plus grandes ressources de la part de leurs parents, chez les jeunes personnes et chez les personnes vivant au Québec et dans les milieux urbains. This paper examines possible determinants of models of the division of earning and caring activities in Canadian couples. Using the General Social Survey on Time Use, we identify five models of the division of work: complementary‐traditional, complementary‐gender‐reversed, women's double burden, men's double burden, and shared roles. While the complementary‐traditional model is declining, it still represents a third of couples. Women's double burden is the second largest category, representing 27 percent of couples in 2005, with men's double burden representing another 11 percent. The shared roles account for about a quarter of couples. Building on these typologies of earning and caring, we analyze the relative importance of life course, as well as structural and cultural factors as determinants of the division of paid and unpaid work within couples. We find that the complementary‐traditional and women's double burdens are more likely for older persons, and for persons with young children. Alternative models are more common when women have higher relative resources, for younger persons, and for persons living in Quebec and in urban areas.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".