MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399623035 · doi:10.1080/17441730.2024.2362010

Housework sharing among older couples: explaining the gendered division of domestic labour in older age in South Korea

2024· article· en· W4399623035 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Population Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Suwon
KeywordsWifeDivision of labourDemographic economicsDistribution (mathematics)IdeologyDual (grammatical number)SociologyPsychologyGender studiesLabour economicsEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study investigates the relationship between family models and housework division among older couples. Using the 2019 Korean Time Use Survey, we analysed wives’ share of housework in four family models—dual-earner, traditional (husband-breadwinner), wife-breadwinner, and retired (non-employed) couples—in which at least one partner was aged 65 or above (N = 1,564). Results show that although wives’ housework share varies across the four family models, unequal distribution of housework persists in older age, with wives shouldering over 70 per cent of the total housework regardless of the family model. Wives’ housework share in wife-breadwinner couples was significantly lower than that among dual earners. We also found that economic resources, particularly income, and gender ideology play a limited role in explaining the division of housework among older couples. However, health played a crucial role, with wives and husbands doing more housework when their partners reported poor health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.296 · 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