Male/Female Differences in the Impact of Caring for Elderly Relatives on Labor Market Attachment and Hours of Work: 1997–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Using representative samples of the Canadian labor market (N = 5,871,850), this study examined male/female differences in the impact of informal care on labor market attachment, and the extent to which differences in labor market participation and employment relationships explained these differences over a 19-year period. METHODS: We examined four outcomes related to labor market impacts associated with caring for elderly relatives: leaving the labor market, working part-time, taking time off work in the previous week, and the amount of time taken off from work. Regression models examined differences between men and women, and the extent to which gendered labor market roles accounted for these differences. RESULTS: We observed an increase in all labor market outcomes over the study period. Women were more likely than men to experience each outcome. Adjusting for labor market role variables did not change these estimates appreciably. After adjustment for differences in labor market roles women were 73% more likely to leave the labor market, more than 5 times more likely to work part-time, and twice as likely to take time off in the last week due to informal care. Further, for temporary absences to provide care, women took an average of 160 min more per week than men. DISCUSSION: Taken together, these results suggest an increasing impact of informal care on labor market participation in Canada between 1997 and 2005, and it remains gendered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".