MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136498667 · doi:10.1177/0018726706062761

We are family: Congruity between organizational and family functioning constructs

2006· article· en· W2136498667 on OpenAlex
Céleste M. Brotheridge, Raymond T. Lee

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Relations · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFamily Business Performance and Succession
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCongruence (geometry)Social psychologyVariance (accounting)Organisation climateOrganizational commitmentSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common practice of characterizing organizations as having a family environment assumes that organizational and family functioning constructs are conceptually congruent. To date, this assumption has not been examined in a systematic fashion. This study examined the congruence of organizational and family functioning concepts using the Work Environment Scales and the Beavers Self-Report Family Inventory in a sample of 204 government employees. A canonical correlation analysis found a moderate amount of shared variance between these two sets of data, suggesting that there may be an underlying congruence between work and family constructs. Additionally, specific dimensions of work unit climate and group conflict were predictive of equivalent family functioning dimensions. The implications of these findings for managers and organizational development practitioners are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.197 · 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