Who Cares? Women's Work, Childcare, and Welfare State Redesign. (Book Reviews/Comptes Rendus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau with seven contributing authors, Who Cares? Women's Work, Childcare, and Welfare State Redesign. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001, 289 pp. This is a nine-chapter book with contributions from nine social scientists. However five of chapters are co-written by Jane Jenson and Mariette Sineau, including introductory and concluding chapters that give book analytical and theoretical coherence. Jane Jenson's work is well known Canada, and central thesis of Who Cares?, that welfare state redesign since early 1980s has been accompanied by a shift foundational principles of (p. 262), was previously elaborated a series of publications (e.g., Jenson and Phillips, 1996; Jenson, 1997). This particular book began a study commissioned by Caisses Nationales des Allocations Familiales, the public body France most responsible for implementing family (p. ix). Mariette Sineau is a French political scientist and director of research Conseil national de recherche scientifique. Jenson and Sineau define regime as widely accepted ideas about relationship between citizen and state and balance of power among state, market, and community (p.24l; a more institutional definition is found on p. 8). Their objective Who Cares? is to examine ways which a key value of citizenship, that of equality -- particularly gender equality -- has been taken into account or ignored redesign of childcare services these neo-liberal times (p. 8). Childcare is thus not of intrinsic interest this book; rather childcare is a strategically selected policy domain that provides a window into ... recomposition of citizenship (p. 211). In keeping with this objective, authors interpretively read details of changes childcare policies and changing representations of gender expressed debates about childcare policies indicators of modifications very principles underpinning (p. 242). The book employs a nested case study design. At primary level of policy domain, one case (childcare) is selected for study. At secondary level of political unit, five cases of childcare are selected: Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden and European Union. For each political unit, childcare policies and gender representations accompanying policies are studied over time, with particular emphasis on period from early 1970s to 1990s. Jenson and Sineau then systematically compare findings for five political units. They conclude that there is convergence five cases towards a set of basic principles childcare provision: less costly services, decentralization of service provision from central government to local authorities, increased diversification programs available and conditions of access to them, greater flexibility use of childcare, and individualization of (p. 16). In general, childcare policies have shifted in direction of privileging m arkets and individual citizens' market power to choose (p. 255). They interpret this evidence that regimes of redesigned welfare states are of a fundamentally different character than regimes of post-war Keynesian welfare state: choice has replaced equality principal value and market has replaced state dominant sector (p. …
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.010 |
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".