Career advancement and family balance strategies of executive women
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore coping strategies devised by executive women in family relationships to advance their career and to maintain career/family balance. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative methodology using a sample of 25 executive women explores career advancement and career/family balance strategies within work and family contexts. Findings Analysis produces multiple career advancement and career/family balance strategies, including professional support, personal support, value system, and life course strategies such as the “ordering” of career and family, negotiating spousal support, and whether to have children. Research limitations/implications Adaptive strategies facilitate engagement in career and family, even in challenging gender environments, encouraging continued research on executive women's advancement and career/family balance. The idiosyncratic nature of career/family balance calls for greater emphasis on the context and timing of career and family experiences. Practical implications The paper offers guidance to women seeking to combine executive career and family and to organizations committed to the advancement and retention of women. Originality/value The paper jointly explores career advancement and career/family balance strategies pursued by executive women in family relationships. It contributes to a growing body of research on the coping mechanisms and adaptive strategies underlying balance between career and family.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it