There is a time and a place for work: comparative evaluation of flexible work arrangements in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Using the Canadian General Social Survey of 2016, a large nationally representative dataset, the present paper compares different types of flexible work arrangements in their associations with employee wellbeing and organizational outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The dataset contains 7,446 observations. Informed by the past scholarship, eight outcomes of job satisfaction, work-life balance satisfaction, organizational belonging, job motivation, perceived advancement prospects, perceived job security, workplace social capital, and turnover intentions are investigated. Findings First, employees with both flextime and flexplace, and only flextime, have a significantly higher job and work-life balance satisfaction. Second, the possibility of working from home without any discretion over timing does not elicit positive wellbeing outcomes. Third, the results show that the combination of flexplace and flextime is synergistic. Fourth, rather unexpectedly, the positive associations of the FWAs with work-life balance satisfaction are stronger among men and women without dependent children. Finally, there are significant positive associations for the combination of flexplace and flextime, and flextime alone, with other outcomes, such as organizational belonging and job motivation, especially among men. Practical implications Given the nonrandom assignment of the workers into the FWAs, the results only reflect ceteris paribus correlations. Originality/value This is the first Canadian study of flexible work arrangements, using a large nationally representative dataset.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".