Finding Balance Amid Boundarylessness: An Interpretive Study of Entrepreneurial Work–Life Balance and Boundary Management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, entrepreneurship has grown as an attractive career alternative, promoting much scholarly attention. Still, little is known about the work–life interface of entrepreneurs, in particular whether entrepreneurship enhances work–life balance or exacerbates conflict between domains. We base this study on boundary theory to explore how subjective perceptions of balance and boundary management might illuminate this contradiction. Indeed, entrepreneurial roles are unique in that they entail high flexibility and permeability, facilitating role blurring, or boundarylessness. We interpretively explored three research questions pertaining to entrepreneurs’ perceptions of their work–life interface and boundaries between roles, as well as the context factors that could explain these perceptions. Findings suggest that several subjective as well as objective factors could explain how entrepreneurial work is sometimes experienced as conflicting, and at other times, perceived as conducive to balance. Theoretical and practical implications and recommendations as well as study limitations are discussed in closing.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it