It’s About Time: Past Approaches and Future Directions for Time Management Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our systematic review analyzes operational definitions of TM, and identifies relations of TM to performance in post-secondary education and work contexts. A broad set of search terms were used to identify 227 sources; culled to 49 after review. Theoretical and operational definitions of TM vary considerably, limiting generalizability of empirical findings, clarity of recommendations, and opportunity to meta-analytically explore effect sizes. Procrastination consistently negatively related to TM. Performance, learning strategies and motivation variables correlated positively with TM. Findings were mixed for task characteristics and individual differences. Studies exploring the work context emphasized task characteristics, negative well-being variables and work performance whereas in the school context learning strategies were emphasized. Across studies, a limitation was measuring effective TM by self-report rather than behavior, violating recommendations by Claessens et al. (2007). Overall, findings suggest benefits of TM in work and school contexts; however, generalizability is limited by inconsistencies in the TM literature.
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 | 0.049 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".