Exploring Hybrid Work Realities: A Case Study with Software Professionals from Underrepresented Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the post-pandemic era, software professionals resist returning to office routines, favoring the flexibility gained from remote work. Hybrid work structures, then, become popular within software companies, allowing them to choose not to work in the office every day, preserving flexibility, and creating several benefits, including an increase in the support for underrepresented groups in software development. In this study, we investigated how software professionals from underrepresented groups are experiencing post-pandemic hybrid work. In particular, we analyzed the experiences of neurodivergents, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and people with disabilities working in the software industry. We conducted a case study within a well-established South American software company and observed that hybrid work is preferred by software professionals from underrepresented groups in the post-pandemic era. Advantages include improved focus at home, personalized work setups, and accommodation for health treatments. Concerns arise about isolation and inadequate infrastructure support, highlighting the need for proactive organizational strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".