MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Re-imagining Parental Leave: a conceptual ‘thought experiment’

2019· book-chapter· en· W3141229545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindsey Doucet, Sophie McKay

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodificationSociologyNeoliberalism (international relations)FundamentalismPositive economicsEpistemologySocial sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsLawEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter is a conceptual, pragmatic and imaginative ‘thought experiment’. Broadly informed by Margaret Somers’ ‘historical sociology of concept formation’, which excavates the historicity, genealogies, and relationalities of concepts, we explore several key concepts, particularly commodification/decommodification and familialisation/defamilialisation. We argue that these concepts, and their histories and ensuing debates, are useful for thinking about and re-imagining Parental Leave as a social policy. The chapter begins by engaging with Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s contributions to debates on social policy and welfare states, briefly tracing his work’s roots in the work of Karl Polanyi, which we read with and through the writing of Fred Block and Margaret Somers, and Nancy Fraser. They and others argue that Polanyi’s work can help us understand and challenge relations between current enhanced conditions of neoliberal restructuring, market economies and ‘market fundamentalism’. With a focus on Canada, we map new pathways for future imaginaries in leave-to-care policy making. We argue that new interpretations of Polanyian insights introduce new conceptual configurations to Parental Leave debates, linking neoliberalism, paid work and care work, market fundamentalism, social protection, social citizenship, and entanglements between socio-economic rights and human rights.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207