The Welfare State and the Home: Regime Differences in the Domestic Division of Labour
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.638
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.782
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Comparative research has provided valuable insights into stratification processes; however, the focus has been on the labour market or economic inequalities. This study examines stratification in the home by looking at the division of household labour. Using data from the 1994 International Social Survey Program (ISSP), I investigate the division of household labour in 10 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden, United States; n = 4799). Analyses indicate that micro-level processes such as time availability, relative resources and gender ideology are important determinants of division of housework. Grouping the countries into liberal, conservative and social-democratic welfare state regimes, however, suggests macro-level differences in the division of labour across regimes that cannot be explained by differences in levels of individual characteristics. Equal sharing of housework by both partners is rare in conservative countries, regardless of their relative resources, time availability and gender ideology, suggesting that the division of labour at home is not only negotiated by two partners, but also shaped by contextual factors.
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.
The record
- Venue
- European Sociological Review
- Topic
- Work-Family Balance Challenges
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- not available
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Division of labourWelfare stateIdeologyWelfareSocial stratificationDistribution (mathematics)InequalityDemographic economicsDivision (mathematics)EconomicsMacro levelLabour economicsSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic systemSocial scienceMarket economy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes