Interpersonal Context at Work and the Frequency, Appraisal, and Consequences of Boundary-Spanning Demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to job-specific conditions, the interpersonal context of work has received less attention from work–family scholars. Using data from a 2007 U.S. survey of workers (N = 1,286), we examine the impact of workplace social support and interpersonal conflict on work–family conflict and exposure to boundary-spanning demands—as indexed by the frequency that workers receive work-related contact outside of normal work hours. Findings indicate that workplace social support is associated negatively with work-to-family conflict, while interpersonal conflict at work is associated with higher levels of work-to-family conflict. Results also indicate that both supportive and conflictive work contexts are associated with more frequent exposure to boundary-spanning demands. However, workers in supportive contexts are more likely to appraise these demands as beneficial for accomplishing work tasks, and are less likely to appraise them as disruptive to family roles. By contrast, workers in conflictive contexts are more likely to appraise demands as disruptive to family roles, and are less likely to appraise them as beneficial for paid work. Consequently, our findings underscore the resource and demands aspects of interpersonal work contexts and their implications for the work–family interface.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".