What and How are we Measuring When we Research Gendered Divisions of Domestic Labor? Remaking the Household Portrait Method into a Care/Work Portrait
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
The porous and shifting boundaries within and between care and work concepts, and practices and their related measurement complexities call for innovative conceptual and methodological approaches to research on work and care. This article details how we reconfigured the Household Portrait – a qualitative, participatory, visual, creative method that engages couples in mapping and discussing their household and care tasks and responsibilities – into a Care/Work Portrait. Informed by conceptual shifts in care theories, the Care/Work Portrait offers theoretical and methodological advantages for studying gendered divisions and relations of household work and care. It attends to unpaid care work/paid work/paid care work intra-connections, moves outside the household to include community-based work, deepens distinctions between tasks and responsibilities, and considers wider forms and contexts of care. This method goes beyond who does what tallies to bring forth relational, temporal, spatial stories about people’s complex care/work configurations and the specific contexts, constraints, supports, and structuring conditions of their 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 | 0.028 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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