MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980335638 · doi:10.1177/0022146513504761

The Impact of Neighborhood Composition on Work-Family Conflict and Distress

2013· article· en· W1980335638 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marisa Young, Blair Wheaton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Social Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentPsychologyNormativeMental healthDistressPerceptionAffect (linguistics)Social psychologySurvey data collectionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories of work-family conflict (WFC) and health remain limited because they emphasize individual-level antecedents to the exclusion of broader contexts, such as residential neighborhoods. We address this issue by focusing on the impact of neighborhood social composition on WFC. Among couples with children we assess whether socially similar neighbors relative to oneself reduce perceptions and mental health consequences of WFC, and whether these associations differ by gender. We argue that the convergence of similarities in residents' features relative to the respondent's own may affect WFC by influencing normative expectations about work and family, and assumptions of available support. We use data on intact families with at least one child between the ages of 9 and 16 from Toronto, Canada, linked to census data. Results highlight that greater similarity between respondents and residents reduces perceptions and consequences of WFC for women but not men. We discuss these findings in relation to neighborhood effects and mental health literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 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

Citations69
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Social BehaviorSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207