Organizational Culture in the Context of National Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An organization's culture can have a profound impact on how its employees with caregiving responsibilities experience their work and family roles (Shockley, in press;Thompson, Beauvais & Lyness, 1999).At the same time, national culture also influences individuals' preferences for how they manage those roles.For instance, workaholism among men is more common in cultures centered on achievement and material success than in cultures that emphasize quality of life; women are less likely to work outside the home in cultures featuring a strong breadwinner/homemaker gender role ideology (Lewis, 2009;Snir & Harpaz, 2009).Given that globalization has increased international mobility for workers as well as the likelihood that home country workers are interacting with colleagues from or in other countries (Tams & Arthur, 2007), it has become paramount for work-family scholarship to recognize that multiple layers of culture are increasingly influencing employees' experiences in integrating work and family, as well as their perceptions of appropriate organizational work-family practices.It is important for work-family scholars to determine the efficacy of organizational work-family practices and policies, as these practices continue to expand beyond their Western points of origin and become implemented all over the world (e.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".