The Welfare State and the Home: Regime Differences in the Domestic Division of Labour
Bibliographic record
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".