MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W838579468 · doi:10.59588/2243-786x.1286

Breastfeeding in the Philippine Workplace: What’s Wrong with the Right?

2015· article· en· W838579468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Sanchez Salcedo

Bibliographic record

VenueDLSU Business & Economics Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreastfeedingReasonable accommodationDutyLawStatuteCONTESTObligationPolitical scienceSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are four main differences between the Philippine and American statutes that promote breastfeeding. First, the Philippine law provides that lactation breaks should be compensated while the American law explicitly stated that employers are under no such obligation. Second, the Philippine law provides for “culturally appropriate lactation care and services” whereas majority of American states exempt breastfeeding from public indecency laws. Third, the Philippine law makes a conclusive statement that breastfeeding “enhances mother-infant relationship”. The American law wisely left such matter to individual realization. Fourth, the Philippine law puts the right of a mother to breastfeed on equal footing with the right of her child to her breast milk. American law prudently refrained from creating an adversarial contest between the rights of women vis-à-vis the rights of their children. Meantime, the duty to accommodate breastfeeding in the Canadian workplace is much broader in scope than a superficial directive to establish lactation stations. Instead, it includes within its purview the flexibility of allowing extensions of maternity leave and/or adjustment of work schedules and the liberality of bringing infants to the workplace so that they may be breastfed by their working mothers. The misplaced benevolence of paid lactation breaks is nowhere indicated for this will certainly step into the bounds of undue hardship that shields an employer from the duty to accommodate. In not so many words, the nature and extent of accommodation of breastfeeding in the workplace has a significant impact on the ability of every working woman to fulfill her family responsibilities without forfeiting her employment opportunities. Keeping it at bare minimum will readily result in reduced options after childbirth. Unguarded generosity, on the other hand, will not do women any better. The key lies in striking a good balance, an elusive quest that deserves to be given much greater thought.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0090.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDLSU Business & Economics ReviewSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207