Multidimensional gender ideologies: How do they relate to work-family arrangements of mothers with dependent children in Poland and western Germany?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses a multidimensional approach to identify gender ideologies and investigate their association with work-family arrangements among mothers of dependent children in Poland and western Germany. Based on data from the Generations and Gender Survey, we apply ordinal latent class analysis and identify five gender ideology classes: (1) traditional, (2) intensive parenting, (3) ambivalent, (4) moderately egalitarian, and (5) strongly egalitarian. In both countries, we find that the intensive parenting class resembles the traditional class in terms of lower maternal employment, a more gendered division of housework and childcare, and a smaller probability of using formal childcare, whereas the ambivalent respondents mostly practice work-care arrangements that are similar to the moderately egalitarian class. With respect to informal care, mothers who identify with strong egalitarianism significantly differ from the traditional class in western Germany, but they do not in Poland—thus highlighting the role of the cultural and institutional context in explaining the complex links between mothers’ gender ideologies and work-family arrangements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".