MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975876274 · doi:10.1108/09649420210425309

Balancing work and family with telework? Organizational issues and challenges for women and managers

2002· article· en· W1975876274 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen in Management Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyBureaucracyWork (physics)PsychologyWorking hoursPublic relationsSocial psychologyBusinessPolitical scienceLabour economicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a research on telework and deals with the following questions: Who are the teleworkers (sex, age, main socio‐occupational categories)? What are the impacts of telework on work organization and working conditions, particularly for women, and in terms of work‐family balance, since telework is sometimes presented as a solution to problems of reconciling work and family responsibilities? Finally, what is the level of satisfaction among teleworkers and why are they satisfied or dissatisfied with this system? Are there differences between various groups on this regard? We insist on the dimensions of working conditions and autonomy in telework and highlight the fact that there is a risk of polarization according to gender, women being more frequently in a situation where they have less autonomy than men in telework, although many also see telework in a positive way, as an “escape” from a bureaucratic work environment.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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