The use of mobile technologies for work-to-family boundary permeability: The case of Finnish and Canadian male lawyers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores work–family interface and the use of mobile technologies (MTs) among male lawyers in Quebec (French Canada) and Finland – two civil law contexts with reputations for legislation friendly toward work–family balance. Drawing on 34 interviews with male lawyers and combining two theoretical lenses, shifting ideals of fatherhood and work–family boundary theory, our study shows how men’s preferences for work–family boundary management relate to diversifying models of fatherhood and family. In Finland, male lawyers more readily embrace family responsibilities and they strive to set firm boundaries to curtail work spilling over into family life. Yet, the cultural and professional norm of men as breadwinners remains strong, especially for Canadian male lawyers whose spouses more often assume primary responsibility for childcare. Our study offers qualitative markers of boundary management styles and strategies (spatial, temporal, and psychological) of male professionals – as struggling segmentors, struggling integrators, and integrators. We observe that senior male lawyers, living in more traditional family models, frequently model integrating behaviours, such as around-the-clock availability via MTs. This modeling establishes expectations of what represents a committed professional worthy of promotion. These practices play an important role in sustaining and reproducing gender inequalities in organisations that employ professionals.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it