Caught in a loop? Investigating the interplay between time and emotions for university students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the significant yet under-researched relationship between students’ experiences of time and their emotions during university studies. We frame our study through two existing theoretical concepts of time, that of timescapes and time-as-affect, to illuminate the subjective, contextual nature of time and how students’ experiences of time can produce strong emotions, permeating both their memories and future behaviour towards their studies. We adopted a narrative analysis approach to the qualitative data of three Australian undergraduate equity students, collected via in-depth longitudinal interviews and relating to their university experiences, to produce a series of ‘explanatory stories’. These stories highlight the interplay between students’ experiences and emotions of time showcasing how these can form a loop, which may lead to temporal inequities. Ultimately, we argue for greater recognition of the entangled relationship between students’ time and emotions, as we set a path for this critical area of future research.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it