MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Technology, Work, and Family: Digital Cultural Capital and Boundary Management

2019· article· en· W2943392229 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Sociology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Social capitalCultural capitalSociologyBoundary (topology)Capital (architecture)Power (physics)InequalityBoundary-workKnowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial scienceComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this essay, we develop a framework for understanding the evolving relationships between technology, work, and family. We focus primarily on the temporal, spatial, and relational boundaries between work and family and the ways in which technology is changing boundary management practices. We suggest that the ubiquity and power of communications technologies require active technology management and, specifically, the development of a form of cultural capital that we call digital cultural capital. We are concerned that the technological changes currently underway may deepen and reinforce social and economic inequalities in new and unanticipated ways. We endeavor to synthesize and connect the disparate bodies of research on these nascent issues and lay out an agenda for future lines of inquiry.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · 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