Investigating the significance of single and married mothers’ child care arrangements on work/family role balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between a mother’s child care arrangements and her work/family role balance has been investigated. Differences between married and single mothers’ child care arrangements and their work/family role balance has also been investigated. Seven hypotheses that phrase these relationships empirically have been postulated. From the Statistics Canada General Social Survey Cycle 5 version (1990) a sub-sample of 504 mothers with children under the age of 5 years was selected. Multiple regression, chi square and ANCOVA procedures were applied. The results indicated that 2 of the 7 hypotheses were significantly supported. In particular, the significant findings suggest that family care, day care and relative care vary negatively on satisfaction and positively on number of hours the respondent works per week (two of the four dependent measures that represented the work/family role balance concept). Also, the results suggested that married mothers suffer from less work/family role imbalance than single mothers. In addition, single and married mothers differed in their use of day care and relative care. The findings were explained by current work/family literature. Work/family role balance was partially explained by the methodological representation. Rather, this theory was used as a guide to further the search for a theoretical framework that incorporates both enhancement and conflict. In addition, an implication for future research is to locate additional variables that exhaustively explain this concept so that work/family role balance may become a theory that can stand up to the most vigorous empirical testing.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".