Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the second half of the 20th century, with work demands increasingly encroaching on family and personal time at a faster pace, employers acknowledged the need of work-life balance programmes to facilitate employees maintain a healthy balance between the conflicting demands of their work and personal life. Availability of work-life balance facilities to employees witnessed a phenomenal growth between the late eighties of the 20 th century and early years of the 21st century. This growth has been abruptly interrupted by the current economic downturn. Increasing numbers of organisations, in the name of cost cutting, have either curtailed work-life balance facilities or are contemplating to do the same. This paper analyses the emergence of work-life balance discourse, from the days of early communal living till the present day theories, and presents a macro level model of work-life balance. Further, a detailed analysis of proven and anticipated benefits of work-life balance is presented to justify the need of work-life balance initiatives at organisational level during the present economic downturn.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".