MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143811048 · doi:10.1111/roiw.12119

Gender Patterns and Value of Unpaid Care Work: Findings From<scp>C</scp>hina's First Large‐Scale Time Use Survey

2014· article· en· W2143811048 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao‐yuan Dong, Xinli An

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Income and Wealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnpaid workEconomicsWork (physics)Value (mathematics)Labour economicsTime-use surveyPaid workWork hoursDemographic economicsCare workConsumption (sociology)Working hoursStatisticsSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the 2008 C hina Time Use Survey, this paper examines the gender patterns of time allocation over paid work, unpaid care work, and non‐work activity and estimates the monetary value of unpaid care work. A seemingly unrelated regression ( SUR ) technique is applied to explore the tradeoff between the three types of activity. The estimates show that, holding constant individual characteristics and regional effects, the total work time of women is higher than that of men by 7 hours per week in the rural sector and by 10.5 hours per week in the urban sector. The monetary value of unpaid care work is estimated by five methods. Depending on the method used, the value assigned to unpaid care work varies from 25 to 32 percent of C hina's GDP , from 52 to 66 percent of final consumption, and from 63 to 80 percent of the gross products of tertiary industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Income and WealthSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207