Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection on the author's earlier paper published inGender in Management: An International Journal(formerlyWomen in Management Review) in 2000 titled “Do managerial men benefit from organizational values supporting work‐personal life balance? Design/methodology/approach The paper is examined in the context of the author's research and writing program. Findings The 2000 paper built on the author's previous research and writing and informed their current research activities. In addition, the 2000 paper seemed to reflect emerging interest in work‐personal life balance or integration, as well as the experience of men at work, that was emerging at this time. Research limitations/implications Greater attention to the work and life experiences of men at work is warranted. Practical implications The paper finds that men benefit from organizational values supporting work‐personal balance as do other studies involving managerial and professional women. These collective findings suggest that organizations would benefit by supporting both male and female managers and professionals in their efforts to lead more complete lives as employees and family members. Originality/value The paper indicates that a greater understanding of men's lives would benefit not only men but also women and employing organizations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".