MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612087987 · doi:10.5539/res.v9n2p268

Occupation or Home: Comparison Housewives and Working Women in the Variables of Stress, Depression and Perception of Quantitative, Mental and Emotional Home Demands

2017· article· en· W2612087987 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sayyed Meysam Dibaji, Sayyed Hamid Reza Oreyzi, Mohammad Reza Abedi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionMental healthDepression (economics)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the employment rate of women, particularly in the service sector has been increasing and at the same time, researchers interested on the psycho-social consequences of women’s employment especially on health. This study compared housewives and working women in terms of stress, depression and perception quantitative, mental and emotional home demands. For this purpose, a sample consists of 94 working women and 94 housewives among Isfahan women selected via convenience sampling and completed warttig et al. perceived stress questionnaire, Beck Depression II and peters et al. home demands questionnaire. Results revealed that working women perceived more depression and quantitative and mental home demands, but no differences between working women and housewives in terms of stress and emotional home demands. According to effort-recovery model, it seems that the pressures of work and family role, especially time pressure means that despite the positive role of work in working women, they were psychologically vulnerable because of the multiplicity of tasks. The results highlight the importance of culture in terms of the role of men in the house, especially in the case of families who identify working women.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207