MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392516700 · doi:10.1080/09585192.2024.2323510

Flexible work arrangements and employee turnover intentions: contrasting pathways

2024· article· en· W4392516700 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Human Resource Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Turnover intentionBusinessTurnoverLabour economicsJob satisfactionPsychologyManagementSocial psychologyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the associations between flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and turnover intentions by testing four perspectives with consideration of the subprocess (i.e. indirect effects) that each conveys. Multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) was applied to test the direct, indirect, and total effects of flextime, telecommuting, and overall flexibility on turnover intentions (n1 = 1,505 employees, n2 = 64 work units). Support was found for the subprocesses that involved job control and work engagement. Flexibility was associated with more job control and work engagement which were in turn related to lower turnover intentions. That telecommuting was associated with higher work-to-family conflict and indirectly to higher turnover intentions raised questions about the net effects of flexibility. The discussion recasts the narratives that have guided research into the possible outcomes of work arrangements that provide flexibility.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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