Hebdomadal Patterns of Compensatory Behaviour: Weekday and Weekend Housework Participation in Canada, 1986–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative housework research focused on aggregate weekly hours, which are inadequate in revealing hebdomadal compensatory behaviour in housework participation because such behaviour is likely to occur on weekends when couples have more time to do housework. This article extends the existing theoretical frameworks by accounting for the hebdomadal patterns in routine and non-routine housework tasks. Employing five time-use waves of the Canadian General Social Survey, our study shows that the hebdomadal compensatory behaviour applies both to women and men. Equal-earner and breadwinner wives compensate for their low levels of weekday housework participation by doing more routine housework on weekends. Similarly, husbands also increase their time on routine housework on weekends. Therefore, compensatory behaviour is more likely to depend on hebdomadal time availability rather than on the neutralisation of gender deviance in the labour market (gender deviance neutralisation). Some evidence of the gender deviance neutralisation, however, cannot be completely ruled out.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".