MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407984431 · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100618

You’ve got mail – whether you want it or not: An emic investigation into how email use can be managed

2025· article· en· W4407984431 on OpenAlex
Andre Lanctot, Linda Duxbury

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers in Human Behavior Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsEmic and eticPsychologySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the best attempts of researchers and the tomes of advice in the consulting and grey literature, many continue to experience email overload and the volume of email employees manage is staggering. A troubling problem given that email overload and volume have been linked to negative wellbeing outcomes for employees. This paper reports on a qualitative study undertaken to help researchers and practitioners better understand email management from the point of view of email users. A sample of 30 knowledge workers were interviewed and asked to identify personal and workplace changes that could help them better manage their use of email. Fifteen informants worked in the public sector (education) while the other 15 worked in a private sector firm (insurance industry). The study took an interpretivist approach with content coding of the semi-structured interviews to develop sensitizing constructs. Analysis of the data uncovered a strong link between what users were telling us and some of the major tenants of attribution theory: locus of causality and stability. Most importantly, we found that most of the knowledge workers we spoke to felt that they could do little personally to manage their use of email. Rather, they felt email management was the responsibility of others (e.g., policies, training, technology). Responses were consistent with a self-serving attribution bias and consistent with the norms in place in organizations supporting an ideal worker culture. This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it shows most employees do not take responsibility for their email management problems. Implying that email management needs to be tackled at the organizational level. Second, it provides organizations and employees with practical advice on how they can start to address issues with email management. Third, our findings contribute to theoretical development in this area by exploring email management issues through an attribution theory lens. • Employees blame others and their organizations for their email problems. • As long as employees make a self-serving attribution bias, we cannot rely people to fix their email issues on their own. • As long as the culture and the organization reward after hours work, we will not be able to solve the email problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.284
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it