Tasking the everyday: Where mobile and online communication take time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the contemporary urban environment, the conditions for communication are in abundance, having shifted and extended to include multiple overlapping possibilities for interaction through mobile devices, personal computers, and online platforms such that traditional domains of activity have been subsumed within a relational domain of communication activity. This involves not only an extension of interaction across spaces of activity but also the remapping of how interpersonal communication practices are woven into the temporality and embodied practices of everyday life. The conditions for networked communication partially emerge through a consistent set of embodied background communication practices. These include practices of the individual maintaining contact with technological objects in their environment and also the habitual rhythms of interface-level practices, which together contribute to the forms of networked connection. Stemming from qualitative fieldwork with 35 participants during 2010 and 2011, this paper explores the organization and experience of networked interpersonal communication practices within the temporalities of everyday life. The individual’s perceived need for networked connection is proposed as the prerequisite for, but also a condition of, participation in contemporary everyday life. This paper explores the emerging role of networked time: where the constant and multiple embodied rhythms of individual engagement with overlapping media technologies, as objects and interfaces within the material environment, are interwoven with the capacity of those media to partially constitute one’s relationship to, and management of, time in everyday life. The tension between the finite minutes of the individual’s day and the limitless potential of networked connection is explored through the individual’s interface-level practices to avoid being temporally overwhelmed by potential interactions. In this manner, communication is perceived and managed as distinct, quantifiable, but variable units of time in and of themselves: interaction as “tasks” to be addressed and completed through engagement.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".