Constrained ‘choices’: Optional familism and educational divides in work‐family arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract German family policy was dramatically reformed in the 2000s because of dual reforms to parental leave and childcare provision. While considerable evidence has suggested the reforms affected employment and other outcomes, this article asks what the consequences of these reforms are for the family, specifically for patterns of work‐family arrangements. Moreover, it asks how education matters for work‐family arrangements post‐reform. Using German Socio‐Economic Panel data, I show that college‐educated mothers giving birth to their first child after the reforms earned roughly half of household income if they benefited from expanded local childcare access. By contrast, in areas with lower childcare availability, even among the college‐educated, mothers' earnings resemble pre‐reform patterns, where mothers earn between a quarter to a third of household income. Therefore, the reforms contributed to greater differences in family structures based on the education. One interpretation of these findings is that the status reproducing nature of the Continental welfare states has recalibrated for the modern age, de‐gendered for those with the greatest labour market returns.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".