‘Working the time’: Time self-management practices of remote workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large-scale implementation of remote work appears as a fundamental shift into the traditional understanding of the relationship between time and work. Drawing on sociomateriality literature and more especially on the concept of temporal structuring, this chapter suggests that remote workers ‘work the time' by different practices, to (re)create adequate temporalities to work. The analysis results from an exploratory qualitative study conducted between May 2020 and April 2021 in Montreal with 17 remote workers who were already working remotely before the Covid-19 pandemic. It gives an overview of the temporal practices of remote workers, who are mainly blocking time (i), navigating between temporalities (ii) ritualizing them (iii) or an interwoven of all of them to try to create time to work (and thus, for non-work as well). It appears that remote workers work the time to be flexible. However, they still do it in the clock time of organizational life. They also experiment with temporal tensions, which leads them to exercise a fourth practice that is indispensable to the other three, that of labeling times. In all cases, these temporal practices represent individual metawork, a work which enables work to take place, benefiting the employer.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".