Were Parents Synchronizing Their Home-Based Working Arrangements During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Little research has been done on parents’ coordination of their work arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Synchronized work arrangements (e.g., both parents work from home) could enable working parents to maximize their togetherness, whereas desynchronized working arrangements could enable them to address some pandemic-induced challenges, such as an increased need for child care and distance education. We draw upon the Familydemic Harmonized Dataset a cross-county study offering data on work and family outcomes collected in Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland, Sweden, and the US. Using a sample of dual-earner heterosexual parents, this study examines whether working parents harmonized their transitions between home-based work and the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic and explores factors that potentially contributed to this coordination process. The findings reveal that working couples’ transitions to home-based work from the workplace were synchronized. Parents with similar educational attainment were more likely to experience such coordination than couples with different levels of education. Cohabiting couples in married/registered unions were more likely to transition to home-based work simultaneously than non-registered cohabiting couples. The duration of synchronized home-based work episodes decreased with the number of children, and the length of synchronized workplace attendance increased with the age of the children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".