Bibliographic record
Abstract
For advanced academic trainees (i.e. doctoral students and postdoctoral trainees), success in the academy often involves stepping away from an ordinary ‘9 to 5’ working environment and into a space where workaholic tendencies are largely encouraged. While the daily care and nurturing of a family can be demanding (and itself represents a form of unpaid, often gendered, labour), evidence suggests that children can offer positive emotional benefits for parents, help curb workaholic tendencies, and offer a reason to step away from work and have fun with the family through leisure. This conceptual paper examines the realities of managing family and work lives for academic trainees, a group that has been largely under-recognized in published literature. Issues such as the current work-related expectations for academics (and the ways these expectations can influence leisure), the gendered experience of the academy and family life among academic trainees and the potential benefits of family to academic pursuits will be discussed. Specific strategies that could be implemented to assist academic trainee families, including enrolment and work schedule flexibility, increased institutional support policies and more family-friendly trainee leisure opportunities will also be explored. This conceptual work suggests that academic trainees may face unique challenges with regard to work/family management and, thus, require specific consideration by the research community and academic administrators.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".