MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393167503 · doi:10.3138/jcfs-077-2022

Family Resources and Child Age Moderate the Association Between Work Stress and Parenting Stress Among Mothers Working From Home

2024· article· en· W4393167503 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michelle B. Ayuro, Rosanne M. Jocson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Working motherPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyStress (linguistics)Work stressChild rearingWork (physics)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined family resources and child age as moderators of the association between work-related stress and parenting stress among Filipino mothers working from home during COVID-19. Mothers ( N = 189) completed questionnaires measuring work-related stress, parenting stress, family resources, and child characteristics. Results showed that family resources significantly moderated the association between work-related stress and parenting stress. Higher levels of stress due to work conflicts were associated with higher levels of parenting stress at low frequency, but not at moderate and high frequency of use of family resources. Child age was also a significant moderator such that the association between work interference with leisure time and parenting stress was strongest among mothers of children aged 0–5. The findings suggest that Filipino mothers caring for young children are most vulnerable to the negative effects of work-related stress on parenting stress during COVID-19, and highlight family resources as a protective factor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207