Mothers, daughters, and learning to labour: Framing work through gender and generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a qualitative case study of millennial women in Canada, focusing on how they build meaning and understand “success” in their working lives through a gendered and generational lens. I draw on daughter‐mother interview dyads to offer the framing of an intergenerational labour geography, situating mothers as an important source of work values and expectations for their millennial daughters. I argue that different generations of women have their own sense of “normative competence” or an awareness of expected skills and behaviours around work and family life. Invoking a relational perspective, different definitions and expectations for success in one's working life are grounded not just in the workplace, but also the home, as mothers and daughters endeavour to understand each other. Here, issues of recognition become paramount, as daughters’ beliefs, choices, and experiences may be more or less recognizable to their mothers. My aim is to reveal the complexity within worker identities of millennial women, moving beyond the “factory gates” of the workplace, to think about how young women build meaning and understand “success” at this stage in their working lives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".