MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1721891523 · doi:10.3233/wor-2011-1218

Single, childless working women's construction of wellbeing: On balance, being dynamic and tensions between them

2011· article· en· W1721891523 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Engler, Katherine L. Frohlich, Francine Descarries, Mylène Fernet

Bibliographic record

VenueWork · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionDilemmaWorkforceSociologyRepertoireBalance (ability)Work–life balancePopulationConstruct (python library)Gender studiesSocial psychologyPsychologyWork (physics)Political scienceEpistemologyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Single, childless working women (SCWW) are a notable proportion of the female workforce. The budding research on this population suggests that they have issues of wellbeing that may be tied to specific needs of both their workplaces and their personal lives, and hence, distinct work-life dynamics that require attention. This study explores how SCWW construct their wellbeing. PARTICIPANTS: The sample was composed of 22 SCWW aged 29 to 45. METHODS: A discourse analysis of the transcripts of semi-structured interviews with these women was performed. RESULTS: Most women drew on an interpretative repertoire of "wellbeing as balance" (e.g., diversification and reasonable dosing of life's dimensions). It was associated with a recurrent subject position we have termed "the dynamic woman" whose intensity transfused talk of the activities in her life. Here, work becomes a "passion" and a source of appreciated challenges. However, a dilemma could arise from these constructions for positioning oneself in relation to the cadence of one's active life or rather, in articulating an unambiguous claim to balance. Balance/dosing and dynamicity/passion can be uneasy bedfellows. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses raise questions about possible counter[balancing] discourses and further argue the relevance of work-life issues for SCWW.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorkSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207