Decisions of First Time Expectant Mothers in Central Texas Compared to Women in Great Britain and Spain: Testing Hakim’s Preference Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research suggests that external constraints such as the need for income, husbands’ desires, and socialization are what most influence whether mothers work for pay while, more recently, Hakim (2003a; 2003b; 2003c) argued that women’s personal preferences guide this important decision. Rather than husbands’ desires dictating whether wives work for pay or not, results from this study indicate that women in central Texas chose husbands according to how supportive they were of their wives’ wishes. Their decisions to work for pay or not were influenced by their perceived need for more income, whether their own mothers worked, and their socialization. Components of socialization found related to work decisions included “gender strategies” (Hochschild & Machung, 1989), which are peoples’ childhood conceptualizations about gender combined with their teenage experiences and finally rectified with current feelings about societal norms and how one’s own attitudes and behaviors compare to those norms. Another component of socialization related to women’s work and family decisions is the “motherhood mandate,” a perspective that teaches women to believe that their greatest fulfillment stems directly from being a mother (Russo, 1979). Despite employment, women tended to carry the lion’s share of domestic duties. The findings suggest that both external constraints and personal preference guide women’s work decisions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".