MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386596743 · doi:10.2308/horizons-2022-099

Men’s Experiences of Paternity Leaves in Accounting Firms

2023· article· en· W4386596743 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Horizons · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditAccountingInequalityVariety (cybernetics)Work (physics)Gender inequalitySociologyPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SYNOPSIS Accounting researchers and practitioners have made strides in addressing persistent gender inequalities in the accounting profession. However, these efforts have largely sidestepped men and masculinities. Our study considers the role of men and masculinities in gender inequalities by exploring how men in accounting experience paternity leaves. We conduct interviews with 13 men in audit firms in France. We find that fathers are reluctant to take leaves, which they view as vacation periods incompatible with their professional work. They see audit firms as offering less support to fathers than mothers, with support for fathers growing but still marginal. Finally, they experience a variety of emotions, including positive emotions around fatherhood and negative emotions around difficulties in reconciling fatherhood with professional responsibilities and paternity leaves. Practically, our findings imply that to address gender inequalities further, accounting firms need to change the norms around care work, including paternity leaves.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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