Oppositional Occupations and Automatic Script-based Mechanisms of Work-Home Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Departing from predominant temporal and affective explanations of work-home conflict, we introduce novel theory to explain how some forms of work are particularly likely to foster conflict with family members. We argue that while all occupations have entrenched and prescriptively normative cognitive behavioral scripts that guide effective work task execution, some occupations’ cognitive behavioral scripts are predominantly adversarial in nature and are largely inappropriate outside of the work domain. We label such occupations as “oppositional,” and articulate four underlying dimensions of adversarial thoughts and behaviors (intellectual, interpersonally hostile, authoritarian, and physical) that are part of oppositional work. Further, we propose how each dimension of adversarial thoughts and behaviors might be inadvertently triggered at home, suggest the likely consequences for workers’ family lives, and discuss for whom this might be most likely. We conclude with a discussion of how the consideration of oppositional occupations contributes to management theory and can generate research across work-home conflict, boundary theory, and occupations literatures, as well as practical implications.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".