Earning and Caring in Canadian Families, Roderic Beaujot; Women, Work and\n Social Rights: Canada in Historical and Comparative Perspective, Cecilia M.\n Benoit; Women's Organizing and Public Policy in Canada and Sweden, Linda Briskin\n and Monica Eliasson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This trio of books has very different goals, presentation, style, emphases and conclusions.Earning and Caring in Canadian Families is a lengthy single-authored overview of how caring and earning take place and have changed in Canadian families.Its focus is on men's and women's changing roles.It concludes that gender and caring/earning have become, or perhaps should become, unlinked, with important implications for policy.If women and men are, or are thought to be, now more equally involved in earning and in caring, then policies that "risk insure" women for caring over earning could, the book argues, be dispensed with in favour of more gender neutral policies.Women, Work and Social Rights, also singleauthored, sets as its goal comparisons of women's work situations, both paid and unpaid, and women's access to social rights across time and place, and how these link.The focus again is largely on Canada, with windows on the United States and Sweden for comparative contextualization.Key to this book's intellectual structure and organisational backbone is its questioning stance: on the meanings of work; on historical myths about gender and work; on the relation of women's economic independence to socio-political recognition of their continuing role in unpaid caring work; and on the inevitability of both capitalism and patriarchy for structuring women's work and social rights.Women's Organizing and Public Policy... is a large-scale systematic comparative study of
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".