Gendered division of housework tasks: Decomposing the gender gap in Canada, 1986–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What factors account for the gender gap in housework tasks?To answer this question, I analyze time-use diaries from the Canadian General Social Survey for the period from 1986 to 2010.Using the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method, we test the relative resources, time availability, autonomy and gender display frameworks in their ability to explain the gender gap in housework among Anglo-, French, Chinese, South Asian, and Filipino Canadians.The results vary by the type of the task and show that among more housework tasks traditionally more associated with women, the most potent theory in explaining the gender gap among resource-based approaches is the relative resources perspective.The findings suggest that Canadians rely on bargaining with resources rather than autonomous resources when it comes to the division of housework.The gender gap in shopping time, however, is explained more by the time availability framework, suggesting that in less gendered housework, Canadians bargain with time rather than monetary resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".