LGBTQ+ Parents’ Care and Work Arrangements During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Canadian Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parents’ care and work responsibilities has largely ignored the experiences of LGBTQ+ parents. Most gender divisions of labor studies have actively excluded LGBTQ+ parents and/or failed to ask about parents’ sexuality. This mixed-methods study used a combination of an online survey (n = 4683, 350 identifying as non-heterosexual) and virtual interviews (9 interviews with 14 parents) in conjunction with a digital application, the Care/Work Portrait, to learn about how Canadian LGBTQ+ parents’ care and work arrangements were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that a mixed-methods approach allowed us to learn about both group-level trends across parents with different sexual identities and the in-depth experiences of LGBTQ+ parents specifically. LGBTQ+ parents reported greater change in care/work arrangements during the pandemic than non-LGBTQ+ parents. Family composition and creation was important in understanding LGBTQ+ parents’ experiences and arrangements. Beliefs and practices around gender were distinctive for LGBTQ+-identified parents. We present methodological insights and discuss ways in which researchers need to adjust their assumptions and practices to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diverse families, including those with LGBTQ+ parents.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".