MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765335485 · doi:10.1111/emre.12149

Social Support and Life‐Domain Interactions among Assigned and Self‐Initiated Expatriates

2017· article· en· W2765335485 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

VenueEuropean Management Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersLG Display
KeywordsDomain (mathematical analysis)PsychologySocial lifeIMesPersonal lifeSocial psychologySocial supportFamily lifeSociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based upon conservation of resources theory, this study is the first to explore (1) the relations between life‐domain support received by internationally mobile employees (IMEs) from their organization, supervisors, coworkers, and family and friends and their life‐domain conflicts and enrichments in two directions: work life → personal life (WL → PL) and personal life → work life (PL → WL) and (2) whether these links are different between assigned expatriates (AEs) and self‐initiated expatriates (SIEs). The questionnaire data were collected from 182 SIEs and 102 AEs. Results from multivariate analyses show that (1) the more IMEs perceive receiving life‐domain support from their family and friends and their organization, the less they report life‐domain conflicts and (2) the more IMEs perceive receiving life‐domain support from their coworkers, the more they report life‐domain enrichments. Finally, it appears that AEs' perceived life‐domain organizational support is positively related to their perceived WL → PL enrichments and that SIEs' perceived life‐domain coworker support is negatively related to their life‐domain conflicts in both directions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.304 · 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