Household Labor as Care: Care Practices and Gender among Swedish Couples expecting their First Child
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to provide an alternative way to understand gender equality. The division of household labor between Swedish couples expecting their first child is in this article analyzed in terms of caring practices (Fisher & Tronto 1990; Tronto 1993, 2013) instead of as chores that can be distributed. This made it possible to identify intra-relational caring practices within the couples that sometimes clash with the ever present ‘third party; the state and its gender equality discourse. Both expectant mothers and fathers practice all forms of care, although not to an equal extent. Besides gender, pregnancy difficulties and health problems are circumstances that affect caring practices in this context. As part of a longitudinal study, 25 individual qualitative interviews were conducted with individuals in heterosexual couples expecting their first child. The interview material was analyzed thematically, which aimed to identify, describe, and analyze patterns of care in the data. It is argued that these pre-natal care practices affect how the participants shape their ideas about what gender-equal parenting is, beyond or together with this third party and its gender equality policies and discourses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".