The gendered division of housework in <scp>North America</scp>: A systematic review from 2014 to 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) and examines empirical studies on the division of housework between mixed‐gender partners in North America. Its objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the determinants of that division and to critically review the methods used recently. Databases (PsycINFO, Scopus) were searched to identify empirical studies published in the last decade (2014–2024). Data including a summary of main results for the 38 included studies were extracted. All reviewed studies confirm that, in the past decade in North America, women have shouldered most of the responsibility for housework. Many of the determinants identified have a differential impact on men's and women's contributions to household labor, indicating that gender is intertwined with many personal and couple characteristics. Future studies should consider using dyadic and longitudinal designs to consider how both partners' characteristics interact and evolve over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".