MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600439471 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.43.5.715

Risk and Protective Factors of Marital Adjustment to Crossborder Work Arrangement of Hong Kong Residents: The Perspective of Stationary Spouses

2012· article· en· W2600439471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuk King Lau, Joyce Lai Chong, Ying Keung Chan, HE Li-ping

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpousePerspective (graphical)Mainland ChinaWork (physics)Psychological resilienceMarital statusPsychologyDemographic economicsWifeWorrySocial psychologySociologyGeographyDemographyPolitical scienceChinaEconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207