MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394814837 · doi:10.1177/0164027515611184

Informal Care and Labor Market Outcomes

2015· article· en· W2394814837 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogeneityPsychological interventionDemographic economicsWork (physics)Time-use surveyBalance (ability)Instrumental variablePsychologyChinaSurvey data collectionGerontologyLabour economicsMedicineEconomicsNursingPolitical scienceEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data were used from the 1991-2009 China Health and Nutrition Survey to examine the influence of informal care on labor market outcomes for married women of working aged, with emphasis on caregiving intensity. After accounting for potential endogeneity between caregiving and labor force participation (LFP) through simultaneous equations modeling, caregivers who provided more than 15 or 20 hr of caregiving per week were 4.5-7.7% less likely to be LFPs. Intensive caregivers who remained working had significantly lower (4.97-7.20) weekly hours of work. The significant positive effect of informal care on LFP only existed in the rural sample, and these women also had much lower hours of work than their urban counterparts. Opportunities exist for policy interventions that target intensive caregivers in order to allow them to balance both work and caregiving.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.357 · 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