MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124612216 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2013.01.007

A social work study to investigate the relationships between women’s personal characteristics and employment status

2013· article· en· W2124612216 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shahram Basity, Mohammad Reza Iravani, Zahra Ghassabi, Faezeh Taghipour, Hajar Jannesari

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyWork (physics)Social psychologySocial statusSociologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women play important role on building a sustainable family oriented society; they could also contribute to society by contributing to labor market. However, women's personal characteristics such as educational background, years of experience, etc. could impact their future occupations. In this paper, we study the impact of various factors on women's job status. The measurement tools for social factors of employment in this research is a questionnaire consists of 32 questions. The study measures the reflection of repliers to different social factors including social position, popularity, socialize, social manners, self-reliance, speech abilities, responsibility, etc. Data were gathered from a sample of 300 people using random sampling and analyzed using descriptive mono factor statistics, Spearman correlation, Kramer correlation coefficient, Chi-square, regression and path analysis. The validity of questionnaire is tested by using Cronbach alpha (%75). The results indicate that there are some meaningful relationships between woman's educational level, age, residency status, socialization capability, urbanity, skill & ability and their employment. The study, however, does not find any relationship between marital status and number of children and woman's income with employment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207