MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135751045 · doi:10.1177/0192513x05284008

“I Wish We Had More Time to Spend Together...”

2006· article· en· W2135751045 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologySocioeconomic statusFull-timeQuality timeWishTime-use surveyDevelopmental psychologyRegression analysisDemographySocial psychologyDemographic economicsSociologyPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I examine the distribution of time pressure associated with the roles of marital partner and parent using data from a telephone survey. Results of an analysis of open-ended responses indicate that less than a quarter of respondents are satisfied with the time they spend with their children and spouses. Women are more likely to want to improve the quality of family time, whereas men are somewhat more likely to want more time with their spouses and children. Regression analysis indicates that social support, hours of paid labor, hours of housework, job control, and having dependent children are all associated with significant variation in family time pressures. In contrast to research on general time pressure, there are no socioeconomic differences in family time pressures, and women do not experience significantly higher family time pressures than men do.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.303 · 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