MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Work-Life Synchronicity: An Ethnographic Study of Workers Who Live in Vans

2020· article· en· W3045921487 on OpenAlexaff
Angus Duff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynchronicityEthnographyThematic analysisWork (physics)Identity (music)SociologyIdentification (biology)Social psychologyPsychologyQualitative researchGender studiesSocial sciencePsychoanalysisAnthropologyAestheticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After 50 years of studying how work and life interact, research continues to consider each of these domains as relatively rigid or static, with some seeing the two in conflict with the other (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) and others seen each enriching the other (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). However, both work and life may not be static but instead be fluid and changing (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014; Mark & Su, 2010; Spreitzer, Cameron, & Garrett, 2017), each with the potential to be adapted to better align with the other domain. To investigate the notion of the alignment of work and life as fluid phenomenon, we studied workers who live in vans, people maintain mobility in both work and non-work domains. In this ethnographic study, the principle investigator lived in a van while meeting and interviewing 18 workers who live in vans. Through thematic analysis, a variety of themes related to the extent to which work and home are aligned or in conflict were identified, including (1) the identification of the van as home, (2) sense of identity, (3) career and financial freedom and (4) work-life synchronicity. We consider how these findings contribute to theory on work-life synchronicity for all workers.

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207