MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322715877 · doi:10.1111/fare.12863

Individual, family, and employer: Factors associated with fathers' use of parental leave

2023· article· en· W4322715877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Youjin Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Relations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParental leaveEarningsLogistic regressionPsychologyContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Demographic economicsDemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineBusinessEconomicsSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective This study aims to examine factors associated with fathers' use of parental leave in Canada, considering a rich set of individual, family, and employer characteristics. Background The province of Quebec and the rest of Canada have two different parental benefits programs and show different patterns in fathers' parental benefit use. Also, the role of employers in fathers' benefit use has gained little attention in the Canadian context. Method Using Canadian administrative data, logistic regression models were estimated separately for the two regions to examine characteristics associated with the likelihood of using parental benefits among fathers whose first child was born in 2016. Results The percentage of male coworkers who used parental benefits, employer's industry, fathers' earnings, and whether the mother received parental benefits were important factors for fathers' parental benefit use in both Quebec and the rest of Canada. Some of these associations were opposite in the two regions. Conclusion Not only individual and family characteristics but also employer characteristics are important for understanding fathers' parental benefit use, and these associations depend on the design of a parental benefit program. Implications Findings can be used to improve a parental benefit program to target fathers with low uptake or their employers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily RelationsSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207