The Work-Family Roles Dynamics during Home-Based Teleworking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teleworking from home gives workers some degree of temporal and spatial flexibility, and at the same time, poses some consequences in terms of conflicts from the demands, requirements, expectations, and behaviors from the forces associated with both work roles and family roles. This integrative literature review investigated the conditions or forces that are responsible for the bi-directional inter-role conflict and the outcomes of the conflict when employees are teleworking from home, by synthesizing new and grey literature about work-family conflict and home-based teleworking. The forces from the work and family systems which are organizational, personal, spatial, temporal, technological, psychological, and familial are the crux of the work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict as they either cause friction or smoothness to the transition from work roles to family roles and vice versa during home-based teleworking. The forces either act as catalysts or inhibitors during the transition from work (family) roles to family (work) roles. The findings from this review were synthesized into the work-family roles dynamics model by incorporating concepts from physical sciences. The work-family roles dynamics model provides insights into the transition of home-based teleworkers and the work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict that ensue in the work and family systems. This article also offers a definition of work-family conflict based on knowledge from the synthesized literature. The work-family roles dynamics model posits new explanations about teleworking from home and bi-directional inter-role conflict. The work-family roles dynamics theory yields new ideas and questions for future research and implications for human resource management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".