Gender, work, and the family’s morning rush hour: the strain associated with preparing children for the day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-earner parents face the challenge of getting children ready for school or daycare while often simultaneously preparing for work. Although this morning routine is at the heart of the work–family intersection, it is understudied in relation to the gendered division of labor and as a potential stressor in parents’ lives. In this study, we examine who is responsible for and experiences strain from preparing children for the day. Drawing on a sample of 462 dual-earner parents from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study (2019), we find that mothers are much more likely than fathers to perform this labor – even once controlling for work hours, schedule control, and other housework divisions. Moreover, if not for the fewer work hours, less job pressure, and more flexible shifts of parents who regularly prepare children for the day, there would be a marginally significant relationship between this parental responsibility and work-to-family conflict. Although getting children ready appears linked to work-to-family conflict for both mothers and fathers, results suggest that mothers have already sacrificed investment in paid work to take on this inflexible childcare routine. We discuss the social and health implications of temporal work structures intruding on the family’s morning rush hour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".