Double Incomes, Single Calendar: Reimagining Shared Scheduling for Modern Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordinating schedules in double-income households is an ongoing challenge, as traditional calendar tools often fail to meet the needs of families juggling professional and domestic responsibilities. This mixed-methods study investigates the barriers to adopting shared digital calendars and explores how guided onboarding and participatory design can improve their effectiveness for family use. We conducted surveys with 277 participants, interviews with 40 individuals, a one-month calendar adoption intervention with 30 couples, and a design workshop with 12 couples. Our findings reveal persistent obstacles-including privacy concerns, uneven engagement, and limited customization-as well as the potential of targeted support and user-driven design to overcome them. Participants expressed a desire for more flexible privacy controls, role-sensitive features, and smarter coordination support. Thematic analysis across all phases highlights how families negotiate boundaries, share invisible scheduling labor, and creatively adapt tools to fit their routines. We conclude with implications for designing family-centric coordination technologies that balance structure, agency, and trust in everyday scheduling.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".