MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591546878 · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12143

Work–family conflict, family satisfaction and employee well‐being: a comparative study of Australian and Indian social workers

2017· article· en· W2591546878 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

VenueHuman Resource Management Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork–family conflictWork (physics)Family conflictJob satisfactionPsychologySocial psychologyRole conflictSocial workPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.267 · 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