MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002319163 · doi:10.1002/hrm.20334

Cross‐cultural differences on work‐to‐family conflict and role satisfaction: A Taiwanese‐British comparison

2010· article· en· W2002319163 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

VenueHuman Resource Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork–family conflictContext (archaeology)Work (physics)PsychologyCross-culturalJob satisfactionSocial psychologySociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this research was to explore relations between work and family demands and resources, work‐to‐family conflict (WFC), and work and family outcomes in a cross‐cultural comparative context involving Taiwanese and British employees. Two‐hundred and sixty‐four Taiwanese employees and 137 British employees were surveyed using structured questionnaires. For both Taiwanese and British employees, work and family demands were positively related to WFC, whereas work resources were negatively related to WFC. Furthermore, WFC was negatively related to family satisfaction. More importantly, we found that nation moderated relationships between work resources and WFC, WFC and work, and family satisfaction. Specifically, work resources had a stronger protective effect for Taiwanese than British in reducing WFC, whereas WFC had a stronger detrimental effect on role satisfaction for British than Taiwanese. It is recommended that both culture‐general and culture‐specific effects should be taken into consideration in designing future WFC research and familyfriendly managerial practices. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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)0.000
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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.289 · 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