Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study examined tensions generated by business issues for 187 family business-owning wives and husbands over a period of time. Family and business goal ranking identified the first priority goal of business owners (husbands) as positive reputation with customers and of wives (household managers) as good family relationships. The tension questions reflect the five conflict content areas of justice, role clarity, work/family balance, identity, and succession. Work/family and justice conflicts were the highest tension producers for both spouses in each time period. About 20% of wives and husbands reported higher work/family conflict in 2000 over 1997. Five out of seven business tensions statistically reduced from 1997 to 2000 for wives; three out of seven statistically reduced for husbands. Family FIRO model is proposed as an assessment and problem-solving model for working with family businesses. KEYWORDS: business-owning couplesconflictfamily businessesfamily conflictfamily FIRO Notes Note. ∗p < .05 = statistical difference between 2000 and 1997. a p < .05 = statistical difference between wives and husbands; is located at smaller of two means. Note. a p < .05 = statistical difference between wives and husbands; stars are located at smaller of two means. This study reports results from the Cooperative Regional Research Project, NE-167R, "Family Businesses: Interaction in Work and Family Spheres," partially supported by the Cooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Experiment Stations at University of Hawaii at Manoa, University of Illinois, Purdue University (Indiana), Iowa State University, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, Montana State University, University of Nebraska, Cornell University (New York), North Dakota State University, The Ohio State University, The Pennsylvania State University, Texas A & M University, Utah State University, The University of Vermont, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (for The University of Manitoba).
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".