Promoting Wellness for a Flourishing Family-Work Relationship: Strategies for Postsecondary Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current literature primarily focuses on the roles of occupational burnout and the negative impacts of family-work conflict on job satisfaction. Even though there is a growing emphasis on wellness, faculty professional development, inclusive community, mental health, and social justice for students, academic staff, and non-teaching staff, the outcome of the 2022 to 2023 Healthy Minds Network on Employees in Higher Education survey indicates that about 81% of faculty want their institution to invest more resources to support faculty and staff mental health and wellbeing. The current government and organizations’ emphasis on promoting wellness for a flourishing family-work relationship uniquely positions University administrators to provide valuable programs for faculty, students, and non-teaching staff. Therefore, this article used a socioecological model to demonstrate the practical strategies on how university administrators can promote wellness for a flourishing family-work relationship. Applying the Socio-ecological model of Mental health and Well-being allows university administrators to consider workplace burnout from a holistic perspective rather than using limited institutional policies. Received: 2 April 2025 / Accepted: 6 July 2025 / Published: 18 July 2025
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".