MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896913602 · doi:10.1177/0192513x18806945

Sex, Gender Dynamics, Differential Exposure, and Work–Family Conflict

2018· article· en· W2896913602 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDifferential (mechanical device)Work (physics)Work–family conflictFamily conflictPsychologySocial psychologyDifferential effectsSample (material)Work hoursDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tested a differential exposure explanation of the association between sex categories and work–family conflict. It addresses the question of why men and women may experience similar or dissimilar levels of work–family conflict and tests whether differences are due to their different gendered demands and resources. Drawing from a sample of 1,751 employed adults from 63 workplaces, the results suggest that women spend less time in paid employment than do men; a gendered response that is associated with lower work-to-family conflict, but higher family-to-work conflict. Women were also found to be less involved in irregular work schedules, which is associated with lower work-to-family conflict. The differential exposure explanation was also supported by indirect effects involving commute time, family income, and social support outside work.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.275 · 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