Masculinisation or Professionalisation of Norwegian Farm Work: A Gender Neutral Division of Work on Norwegian Family Farms?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in farm work on Norwegian family farms have, since the 1950s, undergone a masculinisation process. Research has described how farming has become a business controlled by and executed by men, a process that has created ‘the farmer’ as a masculine label of occupation. This paper analyses data from surveys of farming couples in 1995 and 2002. The main objective in the paper is to test whether changes in men and women’s farm work can be described as a transition towards a one- person farm structure in Norway. The main hypothesis put forward is that men and women tend to specialise in either on-farm or off-farm work, and that their allocation of work time depends upon their educational training in agriculture, their interests in farm work, and the capacity of the farm to provide work for both partners. If this is the case we should moderate the hypothesis of masculinisation as a professionalisation among men into one-man farming, and opt for a gender-neutral professionalisation of farm work in Norwegian agriculture, where both men and women tend to specialise in farm work and their partners become their assistants. Our analyses do however support an ongoing masculinisation on farms operated by men; men do most farm work on their farms, and more so in 2002 than in 1995. The pattern is different on farms operated by women. Women are more likely to farm together with an active farming partner. A gender neutral professionalisation of Norwegian farmers was not identified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it