How do Older Adults Spend Their Time? Gender Gaps and Educational Gradients in Time Use in East Asian and Western Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study is the first to document how older adults in East Asian and Western societies spend their time, across four key dimensions of daily life, by respondent’s gender and education level. To do this, we undertook a pioneering effort and harmonized cross-sectional time-use data from East Asian countries (China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) with data from the Multinational Time Use Study (Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, United Kingdom, United States; to which we refer as Western countries), collected between 2000 and 2015. Findings from bivariate and multivariate models suggest that daily time budgets of East Asian older adults are different from their counterparts in most Western countries. Specifically, gender gaps in domestic work, leisure, and sleep time were larger in East Asian contexts, than in Western countries. Gender gaps in paid work were larger in China compared to all other regions. Higher levels of educational attainment were associated with less paid work, more leisure, and less sleep time in East Asian countries, while in Western countries they were associated with more paid work, less domestic work, and less sleep. Interestingly, Italy and Spain, two Southern European welfare regimes, shared more similarities with East Asian countries than with other Western countries. We interpret and discuss the implications of these findings for population aging research, and welfare policies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it