Who's minding the children: Gender equity in the first 2 years of the pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The wholesale changes brought about by the COVID‐19 pandemic to men and women's paid work arrangements and work–family balance provide a natural experiment for testing the common elements of two theories, needs exposure (Schafer et al. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue Canadienne De Sociologie, 57(4);2020:523–549) and parental proximity (Sullivan et al. Family Theory & Review, 2018;10(1):263–279) against a third theory also suggested by Schafer et al. (2020), and labelled in this article, entrenchment/exacerbation of gender inequality. Both needs exposure and parental proximity suggest that by being home because of the pandemic, in proximity to their children, fathers are exposed to new and enduring family needs, which may move them toward more equal sharing in childcare and other domestic responsibilities. By contrast to studies that have tested such theories using retrospective, self‐report survey data over a 2‐year period, we analyse more than a decade of time‐use diary data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) that covers the first 2 years of the pandemic. We model the secular and quarterly trends to predict what would have occurred in the absence of the pandemic, contrasting this to what indeed happened. Our analyses consider aggregate and individual impacts, using methods of sequence analysis, clustering, and matching. Among our results, we find that the division of childcare responsibilities did not become more equitable during the pandemic. Suggestions for future research are provided as are suggestions for the implementation of social policies that could influence greater gender equity in unpaid work and childcare.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".