Gender equality and work–family conflict from a cross-national perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between gender ideology at the individual level, gender equality at the country level, and women and men’s experiences of work interference with family (WIF) and family interference with work (FIW). We use data from the 2012 International Social Survey Programme as well as the 2011 to 2015 Human Development Reports. Our sample consists of 24,547 respondents from 37 countries. Based on multilevel mixed-effects logistic models, we find that women are more likely than men to experience WIF and FIW. At the individual level, traditional gender ideology positively predicts WIF and FIW. Women and men who reside in more gender-unequal countries have a higher likelihood of FIW while men in these contexts also are more likely to experience WIF. Societal gender inequality is more consequential for those who hold less traditional gender ideology. In conclusion, gender egalitarianism at the individual level and gender equality at the country level are both associated with less WIF and FIW. Policies that seek to address work–family balance should incorporate measures to promote gender equality.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".