Bibliographic record
Abstract
BEYOND CARING LABOUR TO PROVISIONING WORK Sheila M. Neysmith, Marge Reitsma-Street, Stephanie Baker Collins, and Elaine Porter with Judy Cerny and Sandra Tam Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012 In Beyond Caring Labour to Provisioning Work, Shelia M. Neysmith, Marge Reitsma-Street, Stephanie Baker Collins and Elaine Porter with Judy Cerny and Sandra Tam engage with the concept of provisioning in pursuit of fresh understanding of what constitutes work and security for low-income women in Canada. The book presents the findings of their four-year project that worked in consultation with six different community organizations to explore the range of women's provisioning responsibilities and the relationships that motivate their provisioning work. The six sites were spread across Ontario and British Columbia, both widely recognized as provinces where social services have faced widespread cutbacks. Across all sites, a total of 138 informants--including site participants, volunteers and staff--participated in individual interviews and focus groups. The researchers also conducted field research and content analysis of relevant policy documents for each organization. The authors place the concept of provisioning at the centre of their approach. Borrowed from feminist economists, this concept represents a response to the need for new words that can broaden our understanding of 'work' and foster a dialogue outside of the boundaries of traditional social economic theory. Here, provisioning refers to all types of work performed by women that is invisible to the market economy. Efforts are made to include, yet go beyond, the well-documented (if still undervalued) work often performed by women such as household labour, caring work and volunteer work. Included in the concept of provisioning work here are activities such as making claims to benefits for which participants are entitled, improving community safety, and efforts to envision a better future. The book is divided into three parts, the first of which outlines the study itself and its major findings, with a separation of provisioning at the level of individual households and collective provisioning that is conducted through work with community organizations. The second part details the research findings for each of three key research sites, examining specific communities including young 'at-risk' women, low-income immigrant and refugee mothers, and older women. Findings associated with the remaining three sites are summarized in the closing chapter of Part Two that explores the intersection between the individual and collective provisioning of low-income women living in smaller urban areas. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".