Influences on the provision of work–life benefits: Management and employee perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As several previous studies have shown, the provision of work–life benefits (WLB) varies between organisations; while some organisations provide a comprehensive range of WLB, others do not. Our research aims to identify and examine the influences on the provision of WLB in an organisation. Recognising the potential for different goals and agenda, we propose that it is necessary to understand the perspectives of WLB held by managers and by employees. To inform our research, we have drawn upon the complementary theoretical bases of strategic choice theory, stakeholder theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Using multiple methods of data collection and including management and employee perspectives, qualitative case studies were undertaken with two Australian subsidiaries of large multinational firms. We develop and refine a framework that identifies the influences on the provision of WLB. This framework is a useful guide for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and manage WLB.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it