Balance in Everyday Life: Dual-Income Parents' Collective and Individual Conceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the social justice movement has lessened the gender gap in paid and unpaid occupational participation, the subject of balance in everyday life is receiving increased attention. Although various theories about balance have been developed, it remains elusive as a concept. This research investigates the ways in which men and women in dual-income couples with young children conceive of balance in everyday life. The phenomenographic study recruited 15 heterosexual, dual-income couples living with at least one child under age six; two individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with both partners in each couple. The analyses generated two key conceptions of balance: managing life and participating in a mix of occupations. In elucidating these conceptions, parents associated the former with meeting collective needs and the latter with meeting individual needs. Trying to simultaneously satisfy these two conceptions of balance created tension. Managing life reinforced parents' intensive commitment to parenting and led to balance, but it limited their engagement in personal occupations, which was associated with imbalance. Conversely, participating in a mix of occupations allowed parents to meet their own needs and contributed to balance, but as it reduced the time they spent with their families, it was related to imbalance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".