The Stressors in Professional Women’s Work-family Conflict: A Chinese Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the base of some existing studies on the “work-family conflict”, we investigated 121 professional women on role conflict. It summarizes the actuality of the professional women’s work-family conflict, discusses the relation of the women’s work-family conflict and their stressors, analyses the self-factors that effect the professional women’s work-family conflict. The result showed that (1) professional women’s self-role perceived and social-role perceived have conflicts;(2) education, incoming ratio, professional experience can influence the stress;(3) domesticity satisfaction, family activity, spouse stress, work devotion and work load are stressors of professional women’ s work-family conflict. Key words: professional woman; work family conflict; stressor Resume: Sur la base des etudes existantes sur le travail-famille, nous avons enquete sur 121 femmes professionnelles sur le role des conflits. Il resume la realite du conflit travail-famille des femmes professionnelles, traite de la relation entre le conflit travail-famille et leur origine de stress et analyse des facteurs qui ont des influences sur le conflit travail-famille des femmes professionnelles. Le resultat a montre que (1)il y a des conflits entre le role personnel et le role social chez les femmes professionnelles; (2) l'education, les revenus, l'experience professionnelle peuvent influencer le stress; (3) la satisfaction de la domesticite, les activites familiales, le stress conjugal, le devouement pour le travail et les charges professionnelles sont des origines de stress des femmes professionnelles dans le conflit travail-famille. Mots-Cles: femmes professionnelles; le conflit travail-famille; l’origine de stress
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".