Keeping carers from the “precariat”: availability of carer-friendly workplace policies for employees with adult and elder care responsibilities in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose As employed carers tend to experience work interruptions and conflict between work and care, especially women, this paper aims to assess the availability and accessibility of carer-friendly workplace policies (CFWPs) in Quebec workplaces. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was distributed to members of the Association of Human Resources Management Counsellors in Quebec. The authors used a validating quantitative data design. The data was collected between October 2019 and the end of February 2020 and the questionnaire yielded 122 valid responses. Findings Adult/elder care responsibilities remain systematically perceived less important than childcare or general work-life balance needs. The current distribution of CFWPs within Quebec workplaces is unlikely to ensure carers sufficient support to prevent or significantly mitigate negative repercussions. Notable differences were found between organization type and size. Practical implications There is a need for expanding CFWPs through increased support services, educational workshops, broader access to flexible work arrangements and manager training. Social implications The results support recent research findings pointing that women with caring responsibilities face important opportunity costs and risk falling in precariousness. Carers should be able to maintain a social income from other sources to compensate a reduced activity on the labor market. Originality/value By investigating the availability of CFWPs in Quebec workplaces, this paper adds insights regarding the availability and access to CFWPs regionally and in small and medium size workplaces, rather than identifying best practice from workplaces across the globe. Workplace policies are analyzed for adult/elder care specifically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".