MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416663876 · doi:10.1080/0966369x.2025.2589745

Embodied intersectionality at work in hotel housekeeping in Sweden

2025· article· en· W4416663876 on OpenAlexaff
Susanna Heldt Cassel, Maria Thulemark, Tara Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueGender Place & Culture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmotional Labor in Professions
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdNorges ForskningsrådVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionIntersectionalityHousekeepingContext (archaeology)Power (physics)Work (physics)SituatedResistance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the experiences of hotel housekeepers in Sweden, focusing on how their embodied identities, shaped by factors like gender, race, and migration background, influence and are influenced by their work. Placing the body at the centre of our research, we explore how embodied intersectionality is situated and contextually produced as lived experience in hotel workplaces. The way in which intersectional power dimensions are played out and performed is closely interconnected to bodies and the embodiment of roles, duties, identities and expectations inherent in the occupational context of the workplace. Through working participant observation, we explore the daily routines and bodily demands of housekeeping work, a low-status, feminised occupation predominantly filled by women and migrants. Our paper emphasises how embodied intersectionality operates within the workplace, revealing power dynamics, challenges, and subtle forms of resistance enacted by the workers. Our analysis illustrates that the ways in which hotel housekeeping work is carried out is shaped by expectations on what it means to be a housekeeper as much as it is by wider intersectional factors and embodied identities. We conclude by advocating for a greater emphasis on the working body in workplace studies to understand the nuanced realities of such marginalised labourers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender Place & CultureSame topicEmotional Labor in ProfessionsFrench-language works237,207