Provisioning Responsibilities: How Relationships Shape the Work that Women Do
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude documente le travail d'approvisionnement que les femmes effectuent pour elles‐mêmes et pour les autres, tout en enregistrant les contours de ce travail et en analysant les responsabilités qui y sont associées. Le concept d'approvisionnement a orienté les interviews réalisées auprès de 100 femmes. La diversité et l'étendue du travail des femmes se sont manifestées par le choix des femmes provenant de six groupes communautaires marginalisés par le revenu, la race ou l'âge dans deux provinces canadiennes. Les résultats résument les types d'activités et de stratégies d'approvisionnement que les femmes utilisent pour assumer leurs responsabilités. Parce que celles‐ci font partie des avenues de leurs relations, négocier les limites de leurs responsabilités d'approvisionnement modèle le travail quotidien des femmes et leurs possibilités de s'engager dans la société civile. This study documents the work women do to provision for themselves and others. It charts the contours of this work and examines associated responsibilities. The concept of provisioning informed interviews with 100 women. The diversity and range of women's work were surfaced by selecting women from six community groups, marginalized by income, race, and age, in two Canadian provinces. Findings summarize the types of provisioning activities and strategies women use to meet their responsibilities. Because the latter flow through pathways of relationships, negotiating the boundaries of their provisioning responsibilities shapes women's daily work and possibilities for engaging in civil society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".