Finally, some “me time”: A new theoretical perspective on the benefits of commuting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on commuting has focused on its negative aspects and consequences (i.e., stress). However, some work has also begun to recognize that there may be positive aspects to commuting. In this paper, we develop a perspective that has so far received limited attention, highlighting how the commute can be experienced as desired and beneficial “me time”, due to the fact that it inhabits a “third space” that is less associated with work or home role requirements. Drawing upon and integrating theories and research on commuting, leisure, recovery, and identity, we first define this construct and then develop a theoretical model that aims to address key questions regarding predicting motivation to engage in “me time”, beneficial outcomes of “me time”, and potential moderators of these effects. Consequently, our proposed model offers both research and practical implications for commuting employees as well as their employers, families, and society. Plain Language Summary The majority of research on commuting has focused on its negative aspects and consequences (i.e., stress). However, increasingly, some work has also begun to recognize that there may be some positive aspects of commuting. Despite some scholars acknowledging the potential benefits of commuting, most still conceptualize the commute as simply a necessary transition between domains (i.e., work and home). In this paper, we seek to bring a new perspective to the literature, highlighting how the commute can be experienced as desired “time to myself”. We therefore develop a theoretical model that aims to address key questions surrounding this phenomenon, including what is “me time” during the commute, who is more likely to uses the commute for “me time”, what are the situational factors that facilitate or inhibit choosing “me time”, what positive outcomes can be expected when engaging in “me time”, and what conditions are likely to affect this process. We also discuss the underlying mechanisms for this process. As a result, our proposed model presents both research and practical implications for commuting employees as well as their employers, families, and society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".