`Family Friendly' Policies and Practices in the Oil and Gas Industry: Employers' Perspectives
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
The paper explores whether key oil and gas companies are expressing awareness of the work–family debate and reports findings from an ongoing three-year study, funded by the ESRC, which provides an account of the work-family interface in relation to the oil and gas industry. Although this paper is informed by our research as a whole, it draws on a specific subset of our data, namely in-depth interviews with human resource personnel in eighteen oil and gas companies (see Table 1). Companies determined who should be interviewed and this varied depending on size, internal functional design (e.g. geographical location of senior staff), and the extent to which the research was seen to be of value. In eight companies, the interviews were conducted with the most senior human resources manager, while in others the personnel interviewed had titles such as ‘employee relations manager’ or ‘support services manager’. American, Canadian, Italian, French, Norwegian and British-owned firms are included. Interviews lasted between one and one-and-a-half hours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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