Exploring the COVID-19 Impact and Process of Value Change Towards Work and Leisure Among Millennials: "What Would I Rather Have: A Topped-Up RRSP or Stories of a Month Doing My Dive Master?"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted norms and routines such as employment status, \noffice space, and access to recreational services and programming. Values are defined as a broad \nset of goals that influence behaviours, perceptions, and attitudes. Value change is thought to \noccur in the wake of significant lifestyle disruption, such as marriage, parenthood, or the \nCOVID-19 pandemic. Research on value change is limited. Millennials (1981 – 1996) currently \nmake up 33.2% of the Canadian workforce. Therefore, significant change in values could hold \nwider ramifications on the domains of work and leisure. This research asked two questions: (1) \nIn what way are Millennial males expressing their new values towards work and leisure? And (2) \nWhat did the process of value change look like in young male Millennials? This research is \nguided by a grounded theory approach, using intensive interview techniques to gather rich, \nexperience-driven data from seven young (1989 – 1996) millennial males living in Toronto, \nOntario, Canada. Data was analysed through an initial then axial coding process. A theory on the \nprocess of change was determined through the coding process and revealed that participants \nnavigated through five stages: lifestyle disruption occurred to physical and psychological space. \nParticipants became aware of their dissatisfaction, through career choice, routines, and usage of \nleisure time. Participants took action to address areas of dissatisfaction through career change \nand implementing boundaries. Participants then proceeded with a maintenance period of \ntinkering and increasing flexibility to seek the highest form of value-expressive behaviour. \nLastly, participants sought validation from self and from others. \nKeywords: COVID-19, Work, Values, Millennials, Grounded Theory
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".