Careful capitalism: Children, residential kinship, and live-in domestic work in Costa Rica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited publications address structures of residential kinship and live-in domestic work in Central America. Informed by participant observation fieldwork with three families, and open-ended interviews with employers (6) and domestic workers (5), this thesis discusses how kin relationships are created and sidelined through the industry of live-in domestic work in Costa Rica. Employers understand the industry of domestic work as a tradition to be upheld for proper societal standing. These relations of labour and kinship are sites of patronal benevolence that encourage the workers to limit their involvement with their families through poverty wages and patriarchal employment practices, and thus reproduce nationalist and gendered social orders that erase interdependence between employer’s tradition and worker’s paid labour. Furthermore, as a project of philanthropic social reproduction, selective kinship embeddedness of the worker and their child in the employer’s kin structures does not guarantee financial citizenship for the live-in domestic worker. Social mobility for the children of domestic workers is framed as depending on the worker’s present labour and on continued patronal investment. Furthermore, this thesis recognizes how workers, their children, and employers learn to understand structures of difference and navigate their shifting roles across social groups according to Marian ideologies of age and gender. This thesis offers a critical approach towards public issues anthropology as a social practice, and contributes to linguistic anthropological theorization on kinship, gender ideologies, and 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".