MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7082626417 · doi:10.4236/oalib.1114057

Mastering Time Management for Remote Workers: Proven Strategies for Peak Productivity

2025· article· en· W7082626417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOALib · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityTime managementProduction (economics)Field (mathematics)Production manager

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 crisis accelerated remote work all around the globe and established it as a way of life for professionals all over the world, putting an end to their formerly defined roles and responsibilities.In other words, what started as a response to an emergency has evolved into a structural transformation that defines now where, when, and how work is conducted.Giving due consideration to theoretical insights and empirical evidence drawn from the ICT sector in Canada, the article explores the importance of time management as a key variable that determines the success or failure of remote working.This research, which involved 123 remote ICT professionals from Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver, identified time management as a crucial factor influencing productivity, autonomy, and well-being in decentralized work settings.The study also suggests that structured routines, digital time-tracking tools, frameworks for goal-setting, and deep work foster employee focus and performance and hence should be adopted wherever feasible.On the flip side, challenges arise with blurred work-life boundaries, information overload, and lack of routine, particularly among younger pros.This article presents both individual and organizational strategies to improve time management in remote work, supported by conceptual models including Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, and Goal-Setting Theory.It offers evidence-based recommendations for employees seeking greater control over their time and for companies looking to foster supportive, flexible, and productive remote environments.As remote work becomes a mainstream and often permanent modality within professional settings, this article contributes timely and actionable insights to the growing discourse on remote work optimization.Supported by over 21 recent academic sources, it offers a grounded and practical roadmap for navigating the digital transformation of the workplace.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOALibSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207