Work/family role integration, a study of single working mothers of preshcool children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following is a Master of Social Work thesis that examines how single working mothers of pre-school children balance work/family roles. Seven women volunteered to participate in a single semi-structured interview. A qualitative research method, in particular the mode of analysis for grounded theory, was chosen in order to explore how participants used a variety of strategies to integrate roles. The literature review discusses how social policy and the traditional distinction between work and family roles have contributed to an emphasis on the private responsibility for caring. The eco-systemic perspective is utilized as a theoretical framework in order to describe how individual interaction with the environment is aimed toward problem solving and achieving mastery. The use of analytic tools from grounded theory allows the researcher to relay the experiences of participants as a process of organizing and delegating care giving and of acquiring support as a worker and as a parent. Using the same tools, this experience is integrated into a discussion on individual functioning, progressive social policies and supportive workplace policies and benefits. The thesis concludes with recommendations for structural change in both the workplace and in government policies. Employers can acknowledge the interrelationship between work/family roles by implementing formalized policies in such areas as scheduling and family related leave. Government policies can support the role of care giving by facilitating more affordable and flexible child care options. Support for this role can also be achieved by enhancing income transfers such as the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) and by reducing pressure on single working mothers to accept low income jobs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".