Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: The renewed interest of sociologists for the temporal aspects of social activity offers enlightening perspectives on the functioning of family groups. Social time imposes a framework for the coordination of activities by differing family members, and, like a timespan, it offers the possibility of multiple narrations in the ‘future’. For families, time is both a constraint as well as a resource. Aims: The introduction of this issue of “Family Times” uses the plural to highlight the irreducibility of time to a single dimension, which also begs two questions. How Does Time Build Families? How Do Families Build Time? Methodology : The discussions raised in the introduction to this work show that the sociology of time can shed light on family practices, using both a synchronic and diachronic approach, for the entire group as well as for its constituting members. Results: The temporality of education, like professional activities, constitute a socio-temporal framework which is imposed on families as well as the necessity of building an adapted organizational calendar to best prepare for the future. Adoption levels vary according to social and physical constraints of time depending on gender and social environments. Women play a key role in the organization of family time and the transmission of temporal know how. Conclusions : Time is not an external environment wherein individual and familial activities occur. Family members work time differently, whether separately or together, they fulfil the objectives of reproduction and physical and social aims in a manner which is either strategic and well-planned or opportunistic and scattered. Family time is not only experienced, it is also acted upon. Contribution : In addition to making a contribution to the temporal analysis of family dynamics, this introduction opens rarely explored pathways into how families work the different times that shape them
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".