MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121336241 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2013.07.011

Analysis of work-life balance from the viewpoint of Iranian accountants

2013· article· en· W3121336241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abbas Ghanbari, Morteza Ramazani, Majid Jalilinia

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeWork–life balancePerspective (graphical)PsychologyTest (biology)Work (physics)Balance (ability)Social psychologyDescriptive statisticsOperations managementComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work-life balance (WLB) plays an essential role on having peaceful life.There has been a substantial growth of families where both husband and wife work.Despite enjoying advantages of role mixture, life style in family has been faced by tremendous pressures due to ignoring conventional division of work in family as well as making new and more commitments.One of these pressures is the conflict between work and life, which could lead to unfavorable impacts on social integrity of family functions, mental and social health.This paper investigates WLB in terms of accountants' perspective.The proposed study designs a questionnaire, which contains 12 questions where 6 questions are associated with the importance of WLB and the other 6 questions are associated with effective variables in creating WLB.The method of the research is descriptive-survey and the study uses ANOVA test to analyze the results.The researcher has employed Friedman test to score research variables.The results of the research indicate that WLB components had different rates of importance among accountants with various genders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207