MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163982916 · doi:10.1177/144078302128756723

‘When flexibility meets rigidity’: sole mothers' experiences in the transition from welfare to work

2002· article· en· W2163982916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maureen Baker, David Tippin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)WelfareConformityWork (physics)Labour economicsSociologyRigidity (electromagnetism)Labour market flexibilityEconomicsMarket economyEconomic growthPolitical scienceLawUnemploymentEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the dynamics of flexibility experienced by sole mothers involved in a welfare-to-work program, and the strategies they use to retain their identities as caregivers and family providers. Based on individual interviews with 120 work-tested sole mothers on social benefits in New Zealand, we make three arguments. First, despite the constraints experienced by these mothers, welfare rules permit considerable flexibility in fulfilling work requirements. Second, this flexibility can contrast sharply with sole mothers' experiences in the labour market, where slightly higher income is traded for conformity to the rigidities of the low-waged part-time workplace. Third, sole mothers' lack of resources and strongly-held moral codes about ‘good mothering’ make them vulnerable to work/family tensions but also make them less valued employees in the current labour market. As labour markets and welfare regimes are being restructured in similar ways in ‘liberal welfare states’, these New Zealand findings are relevant to other countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of sociologySame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207