Disruptions, Decisions and Discourses: Mothering in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic
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
Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit North America in 2020 life has yet to return to “normal.” New realities included remote learning, physical distancing, lockdown measures, and mandatory masking. The pandemic has increased social isolation, stress and anxiety, employment loss, and financial instability. Even more, the domestic workload that mothers are usually responsible for in addition to their paid work, what Arlie Hochschild (2012) refers to as 'the second shift,' has been compounded and expanded, creating a 'third' and 'fourth' shift that involves homeschooling, increased carework, and 'worrywork' that burdens mothers during a crisis (O'Reilly & Green, 2021, p. 21). Mothers are the unrecognized 'front-line workers' of the pandemic – caring for sick family members, trying to balance working from home with childcare and homeschooling that has pushed mothers to their breaking points. This has left many mothers overworked, overstressed, overwhelmed, taking a substantial toll on their well-being. The purpose of this research is to examine the pressures, changes, and challenges around paid work, care, and family during the pandemic that mothers face– and the strategies they use to navigate these difficult situations. This study involves 11 qualitative interviews with Canadian mothers. The aim was to discover how women define and understand their own experiences of pandemic parenting, and how their experiences and choices were shaped by their constraining circumstances and contexts. This study examines the norms surrounding ‘who cares?’ and how disparities in carework underpin many of the gender inequalities women experience that blur the boundaries between their private and public lives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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