MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154444834 · doi:10.1002/cjas.1610

Empowerment or enslavement: The impact of technology‐driven work intrusions on work–life balance

2021· article· en· W3154444834 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
K L Uthpala Senarathne Tennakoon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyWork–life balanceWork (physics)MediationEmpowermentBootstrapping (finance)Balance (ability)PsychologySocial psychologySociologyComputer scienceBusinessEconomic growthEngineeringEconomicsSocial scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Information and communication technology (ICT) tools have become an integral component of our lives, enabling individuals to seamlessly cross the work/life border with minimal effort. This paper examines the mechanisms through which work‐related ICT use beyond worktime (Wk_ICT) impacts work–life balance (WLB) through four mediator paths: work‐to‐life conflict, life‐to‐work conflict, work‐to‐life enrichment, and life‐to‐work enrichment. Data from 423 professionals from Canada was analyzed using the multiple mediation approach with bootstrapping using the PROCESS add‐on to SPSS. The results allude to a possible downward spiralling effect of diminishing WLB resulting from excessive work ICT use beyond worktime. The findings add to the literature by empirically demonstrating the mechanisms by which Wk_ICT impact WLB through cross‐domain conflict and enrichment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207