The Successful Combination of Work and Family in Finland: The Ability to Compromise as a Key Factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the success at work from the family’s point of view. This article is based on two researches in Finland: one that concentrated on marital success (N= 342 married couples) and the other one in which the employees of the year (N=8) described their solutions to combine work and family successfully. By uniting these two perspectives, the purpose is to give a unique description of how both the family and work roles can be combined in order to enhance succeeding both at work and in family life. This article answers to the following questions: 1) In what way is it possible to combine work and family successfully? 1.1) according to the long and happily married couples? 1.2) according to the employees of the year? Based on these researches, the ability to compromise satisfactorily was the linking factor between these life dimensions. The participants that had succeeded at work and in family life had found a balance between work and family satisfying to both of the spouses. This article is of topical concern as the current tendency of the demands on effectiveness and development at work due to changes in work life have been increasing and at the same time, the family values are becoming more and more appreciated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".