MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W611915066

Restructuring caring labour : discourse, state practice, and everyday life

2000· book· en· W611915066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheila M. Neysmith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringSubjectivityProfessionalizationCare workWelfarePrecarityWelfare stateSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthGender studiesWork (physics)PoliticsEconomicsSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Networking Across Difference: Connecting Restructuring and Caring Labour PART I: THE POWERFUL PRESENCE OF A RETREATING STATE IN DAILY LIFE 3. Being Managed, Managing and Making Demands: Conflicting Images of Older Women Receiving Care 4. Constructing the Single Mother 'problem': Rising Tides and Moral Panic 5. Need, Caring Labour, and the Neoliberal Agenda: Single Mothers on Assistance PART II: OF TIME, WORK, AND VOLUNTARY ACTION 6. Volunteerism, Gender, and the Welfare State: A Case Study in Child Day Care 7. Restructuring and Community Work: The Case of Community Resource Centres for Families in Poor Urban Neighbourhoods 8. Professionalization of Child Care PART III: DISAPPEARING JOBS REAPPEARING AS INVISIBLE WORK 9. Knowledge, Gendered Subjectivity, and the Restructuring of Health Care: The Case of the Disappearing Nurse 10. Transforming Rural Livelihoods: Gender Relations and Restructuring in Three Canadian Rural Communities 11. Restructuring Gender, Race, and Class Relations: The Case of Garment Workers and Labour Adjustment

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.031
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations69
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207