MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3122131351

A Review of the Literature on Child Care as Gendered Work

2012· review· en· W3122131351 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mi Ai Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly childhood education · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationMeaning (existential)Work (physics)Child carePerceptionPoliticsSociologyChildhood studiesGender studiesCare workEarly childhood educationPedagogyPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceNursingMedicineDevelopmental psychologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child care teaching is a gendered profession. In reviewing the literature on child care work that has been mainly published in the U.S., this study explores the gendered meaning of the profession. The review begins by exploring how the work has been historically and economically viewed as gendered in the Western society. It then reviews empirical research studies on child care teachers` perceptions of their work. These studies embody three research strands: child care teachers` perceptions of (1) professional development, (2) working conditions, and (3) their work from gendered perspectives. The article discusses how child care teachers` perceptions of their work relates to the gendered aspect of care work and how they negotiate the gendered meaning of care work within societal and political contexts. The current research offers implications, from sociological perspectives, for future research on early childhood teachers` work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly childhood education→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→