A Theory of Aberrant Work-Life Navigation
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
Everyone experiences major life transitions (e.g. relocation, job loss, birth of a child), and increasingly so as economic, technological, and social environments become more turbulent. Yet in accounting for how work-life decision-making associated with these transitions occurs, we argue that extant theory overfocuses on individual agency and rational thinking. In this article, we bridge an epistemological divide between the study of major life transitions and work-life decision-making by advancing a narrative theory of aberrant work-life navigation. Our theory overcomes blind spots around the study of “real life,” lived experiences, introducing work-life navigation as a messy, complex, and volatile process, capturing the ontology of how individuals experience major life transitions. We point out factors that inhibit rationality and constrain agency traditionally ascribed to work-life decision-making at the individual (intuitive and unconscious thoughts, emotions, impulsivity, and inaction) and contextual (work-life stakeholders, cultural norms, and regulations) levels. Further, we apply our theorizing to the most studied outcomes associated with major life transitions—work-life balance, conflict, and enrichment—to highlight how these are inherently subjective and, at times, determined by factors entirely beyond one’s control. We conclude by offering a future research agenda to empirically test our theory of aberrant work-life navigation.
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