Factors Affecting Work-Family Conflict: A Quantitative Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-family conflict (WFC) has become a critical issue in modern organizational settings, affecting individuals' psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and family life. This study investigates the key factors contributing to WFC by integrating theoretical frameworks such as Role Theory, Conservation of Resources Theory, Social Support Theory, and Border Theory. Ten key variables were examined, including family demand, longer working hours, commitment to family, work schedules, high work demands, individual perception, traditional gender roles, unsupportive family members, demand for leisure time, and personal problems. Using a quantitative approach, data were collected from 100 participants across various industries in Bangladesh. The findings reveal that family demands, irregular work schedules, high work demands, and unsupportive family members significantly contribute to WFC, while commitment to family and positive perceptions of work-family balance reduce conflict. These insights provide actionable recommendations for organizations and policymakers to develop flexible work arrangements, supportive workplace environments, and strategies to mitigate WFC, fostering a better work-life balance for employees. This study contributes to both theoretical understanding and practical applications in managing WFC effectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it