MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415899986 · doi:10.1111/cars.70018

Gender Divisions of Domestic Labour During the COVID‐19 Pandemic in Canada: Did Increases in Father Involvement Persist Through Later Stages?

2025· article· en· W4415899986 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sylvia Fuller, Manlin Cai, Andrea Doucet, Siqi Qin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakJob lossSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Survey data collectionWorking hours

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of widespread disruptions to employment, schooling and childcare early in the COVID-19 pandemic, fathers' share of domestic labour increased. Drawing on Canadian survey data from August/September 2021, we investigate whether this was a harbinger of lasting change. We find that dual-earner parents of young children continued to report modest increases in father involvement in housework and childcare. However, first-wave household employment arrangements that initially boosted father involvement were not associated with sustained increases a year and a half later. Persistent change only occurred when such arrangements prevailed in later pandemic phases, that is, when fathers continued working from home while mothers returned to their workplace. Likewise, school/care closures, most widespread in the first wave, had no lasting impact on fathers' share of childcare tasks or responsibilities. Our findings highlight the importance of longer timeframes and couple-level employment data to assess pandemic impacts on gender divisions of labour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207