Work/Family Balancing and 24/7 Work Schedules: Network Analysis of Strategies in a Transport Company Cleaning Service: Concilier travail-famille et horaires 24/7: analyse réseau des stratégies au sein du service de nettoyage d'une compagnie de transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether or not official work/family balance measures exist within an organization, scheduling accommodations often go through informal channels involving colleagues and superiors and are negotiated within interpersonal relationships. This study examines the relationship dimensions of the scheduling strategies of cleaners working atypical hours in the transport sector through the lenses of ergonomic activity, network, and gender analyses. Using semi-directed interviews, observation, and network analysis, we revealed the effect of gender on relationship dynamics and the influence of these dynamics on work/family balance strategies deployed by cleaners. One of the main contributions of this study is to demonstrate the decisive effect of relationships by revealing inequalities in access to organizational social networks. Creating spaces to discuss work/family balancing and a more equitable circulation of information could contribute to reducing inequalities associated with gender, social status, and family responsibilities and support the work/family strategies developed by workers dealing with restrictive work schedules. Résumé Les accommodements du temps de travail pour la conciliation travail-famille (CTF) passent souvent par des ententes informelles qui s'inscrivent dans les relations entre collègues ou avec des gestionnaires. Notre étude, intégrant l'ergonomie et la communication dans une perspective de genre, porte sur les dimensions relationnelles des stratégies de choix d'horaire d'agentes et agents de nettoyage devant composer avec des horaires atypiques dans le secteur des transports. À partir d'entretiens semi-dirigés, d'observations et d'analyse de réseaux, nous avons pu observer l'influence des dynamiques relationnelles, notamment de genre, sur les stratégies de CTF. Un apport central de cette étude est de montrer l'effet structurant des relations en révélant notamment des inégalités dans l'accès aux ressources facilitant le choix d'horaire, mais aussi dans l'inclusion au sein du réseau de relations. L'article conclut en proposant des pistes de solutions concrètes pour la réduction de ces inégalités.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".