MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581671993 · doi:10.5430/jbar.v6n1p20

Working Hour and Intention to Have Children in Hong Kong Full-Time Workers

2017· article· en· W2581671993 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fanny Yuk Fun Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Administration Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking hoursWorking timeWorking motherWorking memoryPsychologyWorking lifeLegislationWorking environmentBalance (ability)DemographyMedicineWork (physics)Developmental psychologyPolitical scienceCognitionPsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the working hour, work-life balance and intention to have children of full-time workers in a place without Standard Working Hour legislation and with very low birth rate, Hong Kong. Method used a questionnaire survey with 200 below 35, married, full-time workers. Results showed these workers had longer working hour (49.3 hours/week) than many other places in the World (40 hours/week). Most participants (around 70 percent) reported prolonged fatigue level, sleepiness and extreme tiredness and did not have time staying with their partner and family. The mean intention to have children score was 2.045 out of 5. Correlation analysis was performed between working hour and intention to have children. There exist an inverse relationship between working hour and intention to have children (r= - 0.779). A plotting of the working hour against intention to have children showed some linear relationship between the working hour and intention to have children. Therefore, in general the workers with longer working hour were having lower intention to have children. To conclude, workers in Hong Kong, without Standard Working Hour legislation, had long working hours, poor work-life balance and low intention to have children.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Administration ResearchSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207