Helen SWORD (2012), Stylish Academic Writing, Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes how union leaders reconstructed their identity after leading a dispute against the closure of their site. Linking together various aspects of critical theories of identity, identity salience, self-categorization, and coping, a survey was carried out by holding semi-structured interviews with 50 union leaders who managed this professional transition. Three identity balances were identified: identity tension, in-between, and turning the page. The first constitutes a refusal to carry out the professional transition. The second exposes an identity tension in which the leader seeks to assume a “double” identity, while the third refers to the completed identity transition. Our work suggests that the capacity to reconstruct identity depends on the interrelation of personal and contextual variables from which the key roles of social support and the nature of union investment emerge. These results contribute to a renewed understanding of both professional transitions and the identity dynamic in a climate of threat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.014 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".