Work-life balance as a personal responsibility: The impact on strategies for coping with interrole conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a neoliberal socio-political climate, there is increased pressure at work as well as greater expectations regarding the performance of non-work roles. These factors compound the challenge of coping with interrole conflict. In more economically developed countries, work-life balance is a term that has come to dominate the conceptualization of interrole conflict negotiation within public discourse. The manner in which this term has been adopted within the context of neoliberal ideology has shifted the responsibility for managing interrole conflict from the organizational and policy (macro) level to the individual (micro) level. This process has resulted in a maladaptive situation in which the individual seeks to independently regulate conflicting role demands with problem-focused coping strategies that are largely inspired by performance management techniques of the workplace. In response to this situation, it is first necessary to examine the implicit assumptions held within the public’s understanding of the work-life balance concept and to assess how these assumptions shape the strategies taken up by the individual to cope with interrole conflict. Secondly, there is a need to develop coping strategies that are better adapted to address personal objectives. Alternative models issued from occupational science research, such as occupational balance, lifestyle balance, or life balance, may be better suited to understand and address interrole conflict negotiation on an individual level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".