A Test of the Links between Family Interference with Work, Job Enrichment and Leader–Member Exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous avons testé l’hypothèse selon laquelle le degré d’interférence entre la vie familiale et le travail (FIW) chez des sujets “suiveurs” varie en fonction de la qualité de la relation leader‐suiveur dans le monde du travail (Qualité LMX) et de leur niveau de valorisation du travail. La relation entre ce niveau et la qualité LMX a aussi étéévaluée. Si le FIW, en accord avec les résultats relatifs à la théorie de l’échange social, est lié négativement, et à la qualité LMX, et au niveau de valorisation du travail des suiveurs, ce dernier est corrélé positivement à la qualité LMX conformément aux prédictions principales de la théorie LMX. Cependant, bien que le FIW se rapporte directement au niveau de valorisation du travail, nous avons pu montrer qu’il est lié indirectement à la qualité LMX par le truchement du niveau de valorisation du travail. We tested whether followers’ frequency of family interference with work (FIW) relates to the quality of the leader–follower work relationship (LMX quality), and to followers’ reported level of job enrichment. We also tested the relationship between followers’ job enrichment and LMX quality. We found that that FIW relates negatively to LMX quality and to job enrichment, supporting arguments based on social exchange theory, and that followers’ job enrichment relates positively to LMX quality, supporting one of the key predictions of LMX theory. We also found that while FIW relates directly to job enrichment, it relates only indirectly to LMX quality through job enrichment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".