MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914099692 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.49.3.355

Toward Gender Equality in Practice? Cross-National Patterns of Change in the gendered Division of Housework Over Two Decades

2018· article· en· W2914099692 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emma Hagqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceDivision of labourDemographic economicsGender equalityGender relationsRelation (database)Social changeSociologyGender studiesEconomicsEconomic growthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on cross-sectional data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) repeated at three time points, this article studies whether and how the gendered division of housework changed between 1994 and 2012 across 21 countries. Large transformations toward greater gender equality at the societal level during this period (i.e., gender equality norms, the share of women with higher education, and women’s employment rate) are analyzed in relation to potential changes in the division of housework at the individual level. The results reveal a general change toward an equalization in the division of housework over the two studied decades. To a certain extent, these changes are related to corresponding changes at the societal level, particularly in relation to increases in the employment rate of women. In addition, the pace of change over time varies across countries clustered in different family-policy models. The models became increasingly similar to one another during the analyzed period. Demonstrating a greater change in the conservative models in relation to the dual earner countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.498
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.042 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207