Risk and Protective Factors of Marital Adjustment to Crossborder Work Arrangement of Hong Kong Residents: The Perspective of Stationary Spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the close economic relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland, cross-border commuting work arrangements have become a common work-family arrangement of Hong Kong residents. Previous studies have focused on the detrimental influences of the cross-border work arrangement on family relationships. More recent studies with a resilience perspective have revealed that there are both risks and successes in family adjustment to the cross-border work arrangement. The resilience perspective was adopted as the conceptual framework of a crosssectional survey that aimed to explore the risk and protective factors in marital adjustment to the work-related separation. Positive copings of both spouses were found to be the most significant protective factors, while beliefs that the workrelated absence of a parent makes a family incomplete and worry over the infidelity of the traveling spouses were the most significant risk factors. Stationary wives reported a significantly lower level of marital satisfaction than their male counterparts. These results alert us that we should not lose sight on the special challenge of cross-border work arrangements when advocating for a normalizing perspective on families with one spouse working in the Mainland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".