Facteurs explicatifs de l'utilisation des pratiques d'aide à la conciliation travail-famille
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concilier obligations personnelles et professionnelles est monnaie courante pour une partie importante de la societe canadienne. Politiciens, journalistes et scientifiques abordent ce theme sous differents angles afin de comprendre cette problematique et trouver des solutions. Une multitude de recherches ont etudie les pratiques d’aide a la conciliation travail-famille; cependant, notre etude aborde un sujet meconnu en s’interessant aux facteurs qui favorisent l’utilisation des ces pratiques. En nous basant sur les theories centrees sur les individus et a l’aide des donnees de l’annee 2003 et l’Enquete sur le milieu de travail et les employes nous estimons les facteurs, aussi bien associes aux travailleurs qu’aux organisations, qui favorisent l’utilisation des pratiques de conciliation travail-famille. Nous constatons que les caracteristiques de l’organisation ont tendance a reduire la probabilite d’utilisation des pratiques d’amenagement et reduction du temps de travail et horaires alors que celles des travailleurs ont tendance a augmenter la probabilite d’utilisation de ces pratiques.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".