A longitudinal examination of the work–nonwork boundary strength construct
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 Many organizations are blurring the boundaries between work and nonwork through practices such as flextime, telecommuting, and on‐site day‐cares. Such integration of work and nonwork is purported to help employees find the seemingly elusive “work‐life balance.” Scholarly investigations of this issue have increased in number, but a standard measure of work–nonwork boundary strength has yet to emerge. The purpose of this research is to explore the boundary strength construct through the process of measure validation. In Study 1, data were collected from students ( N = 162) to pilot test the measure. Study 2 was a longitudinal field study in which data were collected from employees of Canadian organizations (Survey 1: N = 793; Matched data for Surveys 1 & 2: N = 205). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesized two‐factor structure of the work–nonwork boundary strength measure, confirming the importance of differentiating boundary strength at home (BSH) and boundary strength at work (BSW). Longitudinal analyses confirmed the structural invariance of the measure and revealed that boundary strengths are relatively stable over a period of 1 year. Role identification was related to boundary strength at home only. Weak boundaries, both at home and at work, were associated with high inter‐role conflict. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it