MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390583164 · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12287

Does the welfare regime impact the telework gender stress gap?

2024· article· en· W4390583164 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alain Klarsfeld, Kévin Carillo, Gaëlle Cachat‐Rosset, Tania Saba, Josianne Marsan

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Technology Work and Employment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareMainstreamWork (physics)Demographic economicsIsolation (microbiology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)WageStress (linguistics)PsychologyModerationPolitical scienceLabour economicsEconomicsBusinessSocial psychologyEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract After decades of slow diffusion, the acceptance of telework has dramatically accelerated during the pandemic crisis, becoming a mainstream work practice. However, little is still known on the impact of telework design on employee stress, particularly when stress is high due to a major health crisis, at a time when it is crucial that organizations help buffer it. Using the welfare regime literature, we study the effects of telework demands/resources factors on stress and the moderating effects of gender in more or less egalitarian welfare regimes, during a pandemic crisis. Analyzing data collected from 4602 respondents in France and Quebec, we find that telework demands (family interference with work, organizational isolation, emotional isolation) impact stress positively in both welfare regimes. We also find that the gender stress gap is higher in a more gender‐inegalitarian welfare regime than in a more gender‐egalitarian welfare regime. Men's and women's stress is not impacted in the same manner in the two contexts studies. Contributions to research and practice are discussed, along with limitations and potential future research avenues.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Technology Work and EmploymentSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207