Exploring depoliticization discourses of women's multiple caregiving roles: Implications of economic decline and public policy change for women in rural northern British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores discourses of reprivatization and depoliticization of women's caregiving. The research is set in the context of a twenty year period of economic decline in British Columbia. In 2002, the newly elected provincial government restructured health and social services, significantly changing access to the social safety net. The study explores the experiences of women who are multiple role caregivers in two small communities in northern British Columbia, and more particularly examines the meanings women make of the caregiving they do. Women in this study understand caregiving as both a duty and an honour, but most significantly as a delicately balanced web of relationships. Their ability to negotiate their movement between the public, private and economic spheres is primarily based on balancing those relationships with their economic needs. In doing so, they contest the state's insistence on defining their role as caregivers and insist that locating caregiving in either the public or private sphere be done by the women themselves, on their own terms. The implication for social work is that of understanding the economic marginalization of caregivers as not strictly an argument for additional resources. The primary theoretical implication suggested by this thesis is the need to examine the structures of power and oppression and the development of agency rather than simply the development of programs and resources in response to perceived or identified need.--P.ii.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".