An occupational folklife study of women's housework in St. Lunaire-Griquet, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines women’s housework in St. Lunaire-Griquet, Newfoundland \nand Labrador, through the lens of occupational folklife and feminist folkloristics. I argue \nthat despite many social, technological, and economic changes, women consistently \nremain responsible for housework in the community. In examining the women’s \ncontemporary cleaning using McCarl’s concept of canon of work technique, I trace the \n“work” of housework both spatially and temporally, documenting the daily, weekly, and \nannual/semi-annual tasks in each room. I argue that housework requires a complex \nsystem of conceptual planning that dictates what I call the hierarchy of chore importance. \nI also examine personal experience narratives women tell about their housework, arguing \nthat their narratives position women within a framework of gendered labor, maintain \nsocial relationships, and contribute to their sense of self and occupational identity. I end \nby presenting my concept of the Clean Continuum, a useful tool in conceptualizing the \npositive and negative connotations evidenced by their housework that get associated with \nwomen, and the greater implications for the community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".