The Caregiver Program: How Social Relations of Childcare are Reconfigured to the Detriment of Canadian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A gendered lens helps highlight the underlying asymmetrical power relations within the economy for marginalized groups. Using a feminist political economy (FPE) approach under a critical realist paradigm, it is argued that the Caregiver Program (CP) reconstructs social relations of childcare, thereby creating gender, race, and class divisions. This reconfiguration is examined in past domestic work immigration and childcare policies to demonstrate escalating neoliberal ideals. The theoretical framework provided by a feminist analysis of social reproduction helps uncover how the CP supports privatization, individualization, familialization, and commoditization. The consequences of these transformations are grave, which includes upholding the gendered division of labour, supporting the double burden for women, and intensifying inequality in Canada. Dismantling the CP in favour of a more socially-just policy would challenge these unequal responsibilities for caregiving. The proposed national childcare framework consists of increasing and redistributing existing government funding to construct state organized care based on the Quebec model. It also involves changing the existing work-related legislation to help families better balance work and family life through the implementation of an adequate structure of supporting benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".