MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585501772 · doi:10.1108/pr-05-2015-0142

The relationship between life-domain interactions and the well-being of internationally mobile employees

2017· article· en· W2585501772 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIMesPsychologyPersonal lifePerspective (graphical)OriginalitySocial psychologyValue (mathematics)Personal developmentDomain (mathematical analysis)Political scienceComputer scienceMathematicsLawPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the relations between the life-domain interactions (i.e. interactions between the personal and professional lives) of internationally mobile employees (IMEs) and their well-being and to examine whether these links are different for assigned expatriates (AEs) and self-initiated expatriates (SIEs). Design/methodology/approach Questionnaire data were collected from 284 IMEs including 182 SIEs, and 102 AEs. Two measures of IMEs’ well-being were used: subjective, namely satisfaction with life, and psychological well-being (PWB), which refers to self-acceptance, personal growth, and reaching for life goals. Life-domain interactions were measured from a conflict and an enrichment perspective, each in two directions: Work Life → Personal Life (WL → PL) and Personal Life → Work Life (PL → WL). Findings Regression analyses confirm that IMEs’ life-domain conflicts (WL → PL and PL → WL) have an adverse impact on their subjective and PWB, IMEs’ life-domain enrichments account for their subjective well-being over and above what is explained by their life-domain conflicts, the relationship between WL → PL conflicts and subjective well-being is more negative among SIEs than among AEs. Practical implications This study underscores the need for both employers and IMEs to take action not only to reduce conflicts but also to promote enrichments between their personal and their professional lives. It is of particular importance to reduce the WL → PL conflict of SIEs, often left to fend for themselves, because it has a significant negative impact on their subjective well-being. Originality/value This study innovates in using conservation of resources theory and recent theoretical work linking this theory with the interplay between personal and professional lives to understanding SIEs’ and AEs’ well-being.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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