Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to examine men’s and women’s subjective experiences of work-family conflict in the Nordic welfare states. These countries are often considered to be frontrunners with regard to gender equality, especially regarding the provision of policies that aim to support the reconciliation between work and family life. However, previous research has produced divergent results in response to the question of whether the welfare state institutions of the Nordic countries help to reduce work-family conflict. Do supportive institutions matter, or is the household division of labour of greater importance regarding experiences of work-family conflict? Drawing on data from the 2002 module of the International Social Survey Programme, the analyses indicate that experiences of work-family conflict among Nordic men and women can be divided into three clusters: work-family balance, occupational work overload, and dual work overload. In spite of their shorter working hours, women experience higher levels of work-family conflict than men. An unfair division of housework also increases work-family conflict. In the main, experiences of work-family conflict do not differ greatly among the Nordic countries, with the exception of Finland, where the level is lower than in the other countries. This points to a difference within the Nordic welfare state regime regarding the transition towards gender equality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".