MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726207870 · doi:10.1080/00380253.2016.1246905

Ironic Flexibility: When Normative Role Blurring Undermines the Benefits of Schedule Control

2016· article· en· W2726207870 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

VenueSociological Quarterly · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeFlexibility (engineering)Work–family conflictControl (management)Work scheduleScheduleJob satisfactionWork (physics)Social psychologyPsychologyWorkforcePolitical scienceEconomicsManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schedule control is touted as a potent work-related resource that helps workers minimize work–family conflict and enhance their own well-being. We ask: Does normative role blurring undermine those benefits? Normative role blurring involves the perceived expectation in the workplace culture that workers should take work home during nonwork hours and/or days. Analyses of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) demonstrates that normative role blurring undermines the benefits of schedule control for work–family conflict and multiple indicators of worker well-being: job satisfaction, turnover intentions, anxiety, and life satisfaction. Moreover, to varying degrees, work–family conflict contributes to those conditional effects on well-being. Our observations offer new insights about the challenges of normative role blurring in workplace cultures and their implications for the benefits of schedule control.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.257 · 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