Are Telecommuters’ and Non-Telecommuters’ Daily Time-Use Behaviors Different? An Episode-Level Model for Non-Mandatory Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telecommuters (individuals working from home), and non-telecommuters (individuals working at the workplace) might have significantly different daily time-use patterns. For example, telecommuters might be able to engage in more episodes of non-mandatory activities such as recreation and pick-up/drop-off of children, as many telecommuters have a relatively flexible work arrangement in relation to their work location and schedule. This study aims to explore the non-mandatory activity engagement and duration decisions of these two worker profiles at a disaggregated-episode level. To do so, a multiple discrete continuous extreme value with ordered preferences (MDCEV-OP) model is adopted, using the 2018 travel survey data from the Central Okanagan region of British Columbia, Canada. This model accounts for multiple occurrences of each activity type (i.e., episodes) along with their corresponding durations. In doing so, the model adopts a logical ordering ensuring that the jth episode is not predicted without the occurrence of the ( j–1)th episode of an activity type. The model results reveal that telecommuters are more likely to engage in higher episodes of non-mandatory activities, compared with non-telecommuters. For instance, female teleworkers are found to be more likely to participate in higher episodes of activities associated with household-related responsibilities such as shopping. In contrast, female non-telecommuters are associated with participating in more episodes of personal business-related activities. The findings of this study provide important behavioral insights into the activity-time-use patterns of telecommuters and non-telecommuters, which can be utilized to develop more effective and equitable travel demand management plans, policies, and models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".