Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although universities promote undergraduate degrees as journeys of exploration and reflection, they are also viewed by students as investments in professional careers. This paper draws on a study of 57 second-year students at a research-intensive university in Canada to explore the subjective dimensions of time and school-work rhythms in students’ everyday lives. Data suggest that most students expect to work hard, now and in the future, although their backgrounds influence perceptions of the kind of hard work required, and the magnitude and certainty of returns. Students are future-oriented and participation in term-time work is seen as a way of training for future work lives. This training involves adapting bodies to the temporal logics and rhythms of university studies and workplaces. The interplay of rhythms is experienced by some students as harmonious or ‘eurhythmic’, and by others as discordant or ‘arrhythmic’. The extent of discord is related to differences in students’ work and studies, differences in their time horizons and value calculations, and differences in family background and resources. This paper contends that understanding students’ sense-making in regard to chrono-logics and work-school rhythms is important for building a vision for higher education that better supports human flourishing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".