MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793050533 · doi:10.1177/0896920518761535

At the Intersection of Urban and Care Policy: The Invisibility of Eldercare Workers in the Global City

2018· article· en· W2793050533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kendra Strauss, Feng Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Sociology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvisibilityNormativeContext (archaeology)Care workWorkforceSociologyUrbanizationNeoliberalism (international relations)IdeologyRhetoricEconomic growthPolitical scienceWork (physics)Political economyEconomicsGeographyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demographic aging can alter physical and social infrastructures in cities, and reshape the broader dynamic processes that theories of urbanization seek to describe and analyze. We argue that both urban and eldercare policy often render paid reproductive labor and the workers who do it invisible. They are invisiblized in both policy and urban space. A neoliberal bias in urban policies, reconstructed in the rhetoric of global cities/creative cities, denies care needs. Normative approaches exacerbate this issue, as in gendered ideologies of home, care and familial responsibility. These approaches too often detach the delicate social problem of eldercare in itself from its feasibility and desirability as a site for paid labor. In that separation, the paid workforce typically disappears from the spotlight. We use comparative case studies and the concept of territorialization to refocus on the urban context of paid eldercare work in two “aspiring” global cities, Shanghai and Vancouver.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical SociologySame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207