Bibliographic record
Abstract
Project-based work constitutes an increasing part of contemporary working life.For the individual worker, project-based work does not only entail performing specific tasks -it also entails equally important aspects of dealing with uncertainty and ambiguity, to create swift trust with new team members, recurrently enter new project, and leave old projects behind.Project-based work can arguably be described as a form of boundary work.This thesis adopts the conceptual lens of liminality in order to illustrate the challenges experienced by the individual project worker, the practices used to deal with these challenges, and the competence developed by the individual to handle projectbased work.In particular, the studies reported here addresses how mobile project workers -more specifically, technical consultants performing their work in client projects -experience and deal with project-based work.The thesis consists of a compilation of five papers and an extended summary.It draws upon on three qualitative studies based on interviews, diaries, and observations.In addition, the thesis offers a systematic review of literature on liminality at work.The thesis identifies four different "liminality practices" that mobile project workers use to deal with ambiguities in their work situation.Moreover, the thesis develops the concept and framework of "liminality competence" to describe the different levels of competence mobile project workers show in relation to dealing with liminality at work.The thesis also provides insight into how high liminality competence is developed and, furthermore, how formal training programs affect mobile project workers' liminal positions and liminality competence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".