Challenges of Work-Life Balance Faced by Working Fathers in Kathmandu Valley
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-life balance has been considered as important component in individual life. Today in order to attract and retain their employees organizations are considering work-life balance as their prime concern. The main purpose of this study is to examine the work-life balance of working fathers in Kathmandu Valley. This study followed descriptive method of data analysis and 405 samples were collected with the help of non-probability sampling method. Further, the study revealed that satisfaction and motivation are considered to be key factors that help to maintain work-life balance. However unhelpful attitude of colleagues is found to be major reason creating work-life unbalance. 77.03% working fathers stated that they face challenge in maintaining work-life balance. This, it is recommended that by maintaining structural consistency in the workplace challenges of work-life can be mitigated up to certain extent. These findings will have implication at organizational level. The study concluded that high level stress, unsupportive relationships, unrealistic demands, unhelpful attitude and lack of control were found to be major challenges for maintaining work-life balance.
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 | 0.039 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".