Fathers on Leave Alone in Quebec (Canada): The Case of Innovative, Subversive and Activist Fathers!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006 there was an important change in parental leave for the Canadian province of Quebec. Prior to this time all Canadian fathers could share 1 year parental leave, but the introduction of a new more generous Quebec Parental Insurance Program (QPIP) changed the situation and behaviour of fathers quite radically. This new non-transferable, more highly compensated, regime was associated with a rapid increase of participation of fathers, from 57 % in 2007 to 80 % in 2014. The changing policy environment is reviewed in the chapter, which sets the scene for findings from a qualitative study of the experience of 34 Quebec fathers who have been on leave alone with their child. We focus on the experience of fathers who took parental or paternity leave, alone with the child for at least one month, centering on their relations with the child and wider family relationships, as well as the emotions experienced during this period. Findings show that taking the leave alone allows the father to develop a relationship of paternity as intense as the mother with the child. Quebec fathers in this study reported creating a strong “connection” or “bond” with the child. A majority of the sample interviewed had a progressive or innovative attitude towards paternity presenting a radical break with the traditional father model, assuming a new role.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".