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
Purpose Interest in the potential negative effects of long work hours has increased over the past ten years. The purpose of this paper is to compare personal demographics and work situation characteristics, stable individual difference factors, job behaviors, work and extra‐work satisfactions and psychological well‐being of female MBA graduates in managerial and professional jobs working 56 h a week or more with those working 55 h a week or less. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 247 female MBA graduates of a single Canadian business school, using anonymously completed questionnaires, with about a 35 percent response rate. Findings Females working more hours reported both benefits and costs. The benefits included higher levels of job satisfaction, future career prospects and salary; the costs included higher levels of job stress and psychosomatic symptoms and lower levels of family satisfaction and emotional health. Research limitations/implications All data were self‐reports and the sample of women managers and professionals working 56 or more hours a week was relatively small. The research needs to be replicated in other countries as well. Practical implications Organizations need to consider the potential costs to both employees and themselves from long working hours. Originality/value This paper is one of few studies of the effects of long work hours on the experiences of managerial and professional women.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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