Is There a Downside to Schedule Control for the Work-Family Interface?
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
Using data from a 2007 U.S. survey of workers, this article examines the implications of schedule control for work—family role blurring and work—family conflict. Four main findings indicate that (a) schedule control is associated with more frequent working at home and work—family multitasking activities; (b) the positive association between schedule control and multitasking suppresses the negative association between schedule control and work— family conflict; (c) the positive association between working at home and multitasking is weaker among individuals with greater schedule control; and (d) the positive association between work—family multitasking and work— family conflict is weaker among individuals with greater schedule control. Our findings reveal previously undocumented mediating, suppression, and moderating patterns in the ways that schedule control contributes to work—family role blurring and work—family conflict. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for views of schedule control as a “resource” and theories about the borders in the work—family interface.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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