The Crisis of Care: A Curated Discussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregiving and career have been primarily studied by management scholars for their incompatibility. Largely ignored have been the consequences of this approach for the lives of workers. Yet the need for both childcare and eldercare is on the rise, women are increasingly integrated into the workforce, and, for many, retirement is being delayed. Particularly in the United States, workers and their families are experiencing a crisis of care. In this curated piece, we identify—and aim to dismantle—four myths that have allowed management research and practice to segment care and work. Contributors bring economics, feminist theory, sociology, organizational behavior, and careers perspectives to provide a broader vision both of the problem and of how management research might advance toward theoretical and practical solutions.
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 | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".