The business of women: gender, family, and entrepreneurship in British Columbia, 1901-1971
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines female self-employment in British Columbia from 1901 to 1971. \nEntrepreneurial women comprised a small proportion of the total female labour force but they \nexhibited differences from the rest of the labour force that deserve attention. The study relies on \nthe Census of Canada to gain perspective on trends in female self-employment over a broad time \nperiod; qualitative sources are also utilized, including Business and Professional Women’s Club \nrecords, to illustrate how individual businesswomen reflected patterns of age, marital status, and \nfamily observed at a broad level. The role of gender in women’s decisions to run their own \nenterprises and in their choice of enterprise is also explored. While the research focus is British \nColumbia, this study is comparative: self-employed women in the province are compared to their \ncounterparts in the rest of Canada, but also to self-employed men, and to other working women, \nin both regions. Regionally, women in British Columbia had higher rates of self-employment \nthan women in the rest of the country between 1901 and 1971. Self-employed women in both \nBritish Columbia and Canada were, like wage-earning women, limited to a narrow range of \noccupational types, but they were more likely to work in male-dominated occupations. Self employed \nwomen were also older and more likely to be married, widowed or divorced than \nwage-earning women; in these aspects, they resembled self-employed men. But there were \ngender differences: whether women worked in female or male-dominated enterprises, they \nstressed their femininity. The need to take care of their families, particularly if they had lost a \nspouse through death or desertion, provided additional rationale for women’s presence in the \nbusiness world. Family, marital status, age, gender and region all played a role in women’s \ndecisions to enter into self-employment between 1901 and 1971.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".