MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791025375

Trouble on the home front, perspectives on working mothers in Winnipeg, 1939-1945

2001· dissertation· en· W2791025375 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bob Hummelt

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHome frontFront (military)SociologyGenealogyArchitectural engineeringGerontologyEngineeringGeographyHistoryMedicineMechanical engineeringArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Second World War created a shortage of labour in Canada, and by 1942 mothers were encouraged by the National Selective Service to accept opportunities for paid employment. The federal government responded to the need for child care by initiating a cost-shared program with interested provinces. The Dominion-Provincial Day Nursery Agreement was enacted in Ontario and Quebec cities, but despite significant need for quality child care, Winnipeg did not take advantage of the day nursery program. What factors lead to this uneven acceptance of social patriarchy? Many levels of Winnipeg society were uneasy about the rapid increase of women and mothers in the workforce. Evidence suggests that many citizens shared paternalistic views of women in society, and were reluctant to sacrifice traditional ideals of family even during the wartime labour emergency. As well, professional social workers in Winnipeg's Council of Social Agencies compromised their commitment to modern methodology and instead relied on conservative assumptions of mother's responsibility to the home. The Council's decision whether to implement the day nursery scheme coincided with a period of jitters Winnipeg had over a perceived rise in delinquency by adolescents. Since delinquency was considered a sign of social instability, this moral panic did little to ease concerns that the absence of mothers from the home would cause problems. In all, these factors created little enthusiasm to fund and create a day nursery that would entice more mothers away from their family duty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0250.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→