Lean on me: an exploratory study of the spousal support received by physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses interview data from physicians and their spouses to describe the types of spousal support physicians receive when coping with work-related stress and to explore whether they vary by occupational similarity, gender, and parental status. The physicians described receiving different types of spousal support: emotional, informational, and instrumental. Male physicians in this study often reported receiving emotional support from their spouse, consistent with the support gap hypothesis in the literature. An unexpected finding is that from the responses of the physicians' spouses, the husbands often reported offering emotional support to their physician spouse. Physicians who shared similar occupational and work experiences with their spouse (i.e. married to another physician) reported receiving informational support from their spouse, consistent with the theory of homophily. Finally, the findings also suggested that once physicians have children, their wives often reported providing instrumental support by being primarily responsible for childcare and housework. An interesting finding of this study is the discrepancy between the physicians and their spouses in their perceptions of support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".