MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405099243 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-16167

The Emotional Economy of Care: Precarious Funding and Structural Violence in Canadian Non-Profit Social Services

2024· dissertation· en· W4405099243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine Mary Streeter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfit (economics)Social economyPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsMarket economyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation explores the influence of funding dynamics within the non-profit social services (NPSS) sector serving seniors in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, particularly focusing on how these dynamics contribute to gender-based structural violence against women workers. It utilizes a multi-disciplinary theoretical framework, integrating feminist political economy (FPE), affect theory, and theories of structural violence to analyze the intersection of gender, labour, and systemic challenges. Employing qualitative methods, including ethnographic fieldwork and 25 in-depth interviews conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides a detailed examination of how pandemic-related policies have intensified pre-existing inequalities. I argue the NPSS’s precarious funding models, influenced by neoliberal policies, create conditions that can be understood as gender-based structural violence. I show how this form of violence is specific to the sector, stemming from the cyclical nature of funding which directly affects the material conditions and emotional demands of care work. The study uses concepts of structural violence, to help understand and theorize a cycle of funding in the sector with deep systemic roots. The analysis explores the material and emotional repercussions of these funding practices, revealing their profound impact on organizational, interpersonal, and care quality levels within the sector. Through affect theory, this dissertation articulates a “structure of feeling” that captures the collective emotional burden of workers, framed within an emotional economy of care. This funding cycle often exists alongside workers’ feelings of happiness, fulfillment, and meaningful work, driven by a profound sense of moral obligation, creating a bittersweet contradiction that helps understands why women stay in these challenging roles. Workers were seen to cling to the "cruel optimism" described by Berlant (2011), holding onto unattainable goals for significant change. However, women also display, what I call resilient optimism, engaging in collective care, resistance, and advocacy to manage and confront their difficult situations. This research calls for the restructuring of funding practices and workplace policies to enhance funding sustainability and equity, ensuring the sector can better support its predominantly women workforce, who are crucial to the delivery of essential community services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.027
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployment and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→