Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Oxford dictionary includes in its definitions of (a) the place where one lives; fixed residence of or and (b) a dwelling-house. This core space of everyday life, embedded in legacy of ideas of as haven of domesticity, separate from harshness of public world of paid work, is, however, being shown to be far more complex concept and reality than simple dictionary definition suggests. Geographers, particularly those working from feminist perspective, have challenged accepted notions of distinction between public and private, of family and of as necessarily safe space for women and children. An array of findings demonstrate, for example, multiplicity of forms and living arrangements accompanying demographic and social change, and blurring of boundaries of and work as women's engagement in different forms of domestic and paid work in their own or others' homes is recognized. Furthermore, influence of normative heterosexuality and notions of private, nuclear are being shown to marginalize certain forms, such as lone parent or gay/lesbian household, and to shield domestic violence (see Bowling & Pratt, 1993, for an overview of geographical studies).1 In sum, the home is complex spatial and social institutional arrangement that needs considerable unravelling if it is to be fully understood. Certainly, diversity of families, household arrangements, meanings of home, locations, and spatial arrangements of homes suggests that integrating into research can contribute to our understanding of connections among everyday lives, health, and management of illness and disability.
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 | 0.038 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".