The Interface between Work and Home: Work Recovery Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers in this symposium explore the complex interplay between work experiences and employees' post-work recuperation. Together, this set of research illuminates the intricacies of recovery processes pivotal in the wellbeing of employees and examines the practices and strategies people employ to enable smooth work and non-work experiences. The first paper probes the 'recovery paradox,' spotlighting the significance of psychological detachment in high-stress work scenarios. The second paper proposes after-work rituals as a valuable practice, substantiated by field experiments and surveys. The third paper delves into the often-neglected aspect of reattaching to work, tying it to fundamental psychological needs and work-related outcomes. Lastly, the fourth paper scrutinizes proactive pushbacks against the prevailing 'always-on' work culture, evaluating its work and non-work implications for employees. Together, these papers present novel theoretical insights and empirical evidence, shedding light on the dynamics between work, recovery, and employee well-being. The symposium offers new directions on recovery research and the importance of fostering a more robust and healthier relationship with work. When is it Difficult to Detach From Work? An Empirical Test of the Recovery Paradox Author: Sabine Sonnentag; U. of Mannheim Author: Laura Venz; Leuphana U. Lüneburg Author: Alexander Pundt; MSB Medicalschool Berlin After-Work Rituals as a Tool to Overcome the Recovery Paradox Author: Benjamin Alan Rogers; Boston College Author: Ovul Sezer; Cornell U. Author: Trevor Watkins; U. of Oklahoma Author: Katherine Ann DeCelles; U. of Toronto Author: Chen-Bo Zhong; U. of Toronto Author: Michael Norton; Harvard U. Author: Hal Hershfield; UCLA Anderson School of Management The Motivational Benefits of Reattachment at Work: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective Author: Aqsa Dutli; Purdue U., West Lafayette Author: John P. Trougakos; U. of Toronto Author: Allison S. Gabriel; Purdue U., West Lafayette Author: Sabine Sonnentag; U. of Mannheim Author: Jason Dahling; College of New Jersey Proactive Pushbacks: Examining the Social Reactions to Work Culture Rebels Author: Katelyn Zipay; Purdue U. Author: Matthew Shurman; Purdue U., West Lafayette Author: Jingran (Mia) Zhou; Purdue U., West Lafayette
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".