MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022148914 · doi:10.1093/sp/jxaa008

Comparing Care Regimes: Worker Characteristics and Wage Penalties in the Global Care Chain

2020· article· en· W3022148914 on OpenAlexaff
Naomi Lightman

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Politics International Studies in Gender State & Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCare workWork (physics)WageHealth careEconomicsLabour economicsDemographic economicsOrder (exchange)Social carePolitical scienceEconomic growthNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study uses 2010–2014 Luxembourg Income Study data to measure care work quantitatively within and across four care regimes, with a particular focus on the reliance on migrant women for low-wage, low-status work in health, education, social work, and domestic services. Care regimes are examined in order to highlight similarities and differences in twelve care economies: while liberal and corporatist care regimes are found to display a “migrant in the market” model of employment, familialistic and social democratic regimes exhibit somewhat different employment trends yet continue to financially undervalue highly feminized work in care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Politics International Studies in Gender State & SocietySame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207