MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1873958385 · doi:10.1111/ntwe.12010

Remixing work, family and leisure: teleworkers' experiences of everyday life

2013· article· en· W1873958385 on OpenAlexaff
Margo Hilbrecht, Susan Shaw, Laura C. Johnson, Jean Andrey

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Technology Work and Employment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Flexibility (engineering)Thematic analysisEveryday lifeDevaluationFamily lifePsychologySpace (punctuation)Leisure timeSociologyQualitative researchGender studiesBusinessPhysical activityPolitical scienceManagementEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores whether and in what ways telework is associated with a reconfiguration or remixing of daily work, family and leisure activities. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 51 teleworkers employed in a financial organisation in C anada. For some, telework was a condition of employment, while others negotiated part‐time telework arrangements with managers. Using interpretive thematic analysis techniques, intersections and inter‐relationships between experiences of work, family and leisure were identified. Three main themes emerged, including the need to not only protect, but also containing work time and space; the significance of family and being available for children; and, the relative devaluation of leisure. Although it was anticipated that differences between involuntary and voluntary teleworkers would be evident, gender and family stage were more influential in structuring daily life. The flexibility of telework was valued, but there was little evidence of a reconfiguration of life spheres except for women with children at home.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations114
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Technology Work and EmploymentSame topicWork-Family Balance ChallengesFrench-language works237,207