Unemployed women in neo-liberal Canada: an intersectional analysis of social well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the lived experiences of unemployed women in neo-liberal Canada, through interviews with a diverse sample of participants between the ages of 25 and 40 from the cities of Toronto and Halifax. The results were analyzed using intersectional and grounded theory. The study resulted in four main findings. First, the study builds on intersectional methodology by McCall (2005) and Hancock (2007) to indicate the significance of context-specify and fluidity of identities. The significance of intersectionality theory is that there is not one salient identity; rather the impacts of identities are context dependent. Second, the neo-liberal erosion of the state infrastructure is manifested in a paucity of supports for unemployed workers. The unemployed woman workers do not only have to face a lack of adequate support when they become unemployed but they also do not have adequate support in other aspects of their lives including child care, retraining, health care and labour market supports while employed. Thus, many women do not have access to adequate living conditions without reliance on a male partner. Third, the health of the women was negatively affected, whether precariously employed or unemployed. They have insecurity around not being able to plan their future, and living on limited money and poor health care benefits. Finally, regional economic differences may be disappearing while all EI measures are brought towards the lowest common denominator. Thus, neo-liberal labour market policies put women, and particularly women with intersectional identities, in jeopardy. This study makes four policy recommendations: (1) to create social policies that address intersectional identities to allow women a real choice in facing competing demands of wage work and dependent care; (2) to create policies to curb the impacts of precarious employment; (3) to create EI policies not bound by regions but to the needs of the labour market including the growth of precarity; and (4) in the interim, to introduce extended health benefits to improve the situation of unemployed and precariously employed workers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".