MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050333430 · doi:10.1037/h0087263

An examination of gender differences in work-family conflict.

2005· article· en· W2050333430 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Allyson K. McElwain, Karen Korabik, Hazel M. Rosin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWork–family conflictWork (physics)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le cadre de la presente etude, nous avons elabore et mis a l'essai un modele d'integration de la relation entre le travail et la famille. Ce modele a ete applique separement aux sous-echantillons d'hommes et de femmes de maniere a evaluer la moyenne des differences entre les sexes ainsi que les differences entre les sexes en fonction des variables. Les analyses s'appuyaient sur les donnees d'un questionnaire auxquels avaient repondu 320 participants, des employes professionnels travaillant a plein temps dans des organisations canadiennes. Nous avons observe des differences entre les sexes en ce qui a trait au lien entre les exigences familiales et l'interference de la famille dans le travail, tandis que les resultats obtenus en ce qui a trait a l'interference de la famille dans le travail et la satisfaction professionnelle, la satisfaction familiale et la satisfaction personnelle etaient ambigus. En regle generale, ces resultats viennent appuyer les conclusions d'une precedente recherche, qui indiquait qu'il existe encore une asymetrie entre les roles joues par les hommes et les femmes au travail et dans la famille. Les limites et les questions d'ordre pratique issues de ces conclusions sont abordees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.142 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations182
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207