Balancing work and care: the effect of paid adult medical leave policies on employment in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing caregiving needs for family members has created pressure on prime-age workers. Combined with the ageing population, the demand for care related to illness and disability by relatives mean more of the workforce may have to consider caring needs (Bauer and Sousa-Poza, 2015). ‘Informal caregivers’ provide care generally without payment (Yooet al., 2004). In contrast to formal care, informal caregivers usually have a close relationship with the recipient: for example, siblings and adult children. Informal caregiving is considered a desirable option to meet support needs from several perspectives; these caregivers may be preferred by recipients relative to formal arrangements especially during severe acute illnesses. Caregivers may also feel a personal sense of responsibility to look after loved ones rather than defer to strangers (Fine, 2012) though this may depend on the individual’s needs and the available alternatives. Although men are starting to play an important role due to shifting social gender roles, the vast majority of informal caregivers are women who increasingly attempt to juggle caring with labour force participation (Carmichaelet al., 2008).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".