Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers generally agree that attitudes to gender roles have become more egalitarian over time, evidence that this trend towards egalitarianism has impacted upon the allocation of housework tasks between men and women is less consistent. Australian researchers have found that although the time women spend doing housework has declined dramatically over time, the housework hours of men have not increased. Although researchers in the US and many European nations have found that as women’s housework hours have declined, men’s housework hours have increased, they invariably find that women continue to spend more time doing housework than men do. Many researchers argue that the division housework into female tasks and male tasks underpins the unequal distribution of housework with female tasks such as cooking, cleaning and laundry accounting for the bulk of housework. This paper focuses on the association between gender attitudes and propensity to undertake core housework tasks. Using data collected by three cross-sectional national surveys conducted in 1986, 1993 and 2005 (n=2318), I conduct linear regressions to determine whether men with more egalitarian gender attitudes devote a greater proportion of their total housework time to so-called female tasks compared to men with more traditional gender attitudes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".