Work–family conflict, family satisfaction and employee well‐being: a comparative study of Australian and Indian social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work‐to‐family conflict and family‐to‐work conflict have been widely investigated as antecedents of well‐being in various employee groups. However, these studies have largely been performed in Western countries, and only a few studies have investigated the phenomenon using both Western and non‐Western samples. The present study contributes to the literature by investigating work–family conflict experiences of social workers in Australia and India. More specifically, it explores the impact of work‐to‐family conflict and family‐to‐work conflict on well‐being and the mediating role of family satisfaction in this relationship. Our findings reveal the direct negative effects of work‐to‐family conflict on well‐being and family satisfaction in both groups and of family‐to‐work conflict on well‐being of Indian social workers. There is evidence that family satisfaction mediates work–family conflict and well‐being relationships in both samples. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings for HRM policies in social service agencies of both countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".