The Politics of Practice and the Contradictions for People, Policy, and Providing Care: Investigations into the Implications of Health Work Organized Within State Interests
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
Contemporary workplaces can be fraught with murky ethical and practical conundrums set within hard-to-grasp social and political relations. What has been referred to as bureaucratic, company, corporate, industrial and occupational forms of medical practice (Esland and Salaman, 1980; Walters, 1982; Yassi; 1983; Lippell, 2007; Eakin, 2010), and, more recently, immigration medicine (Bisaillon, 2013) are examples of health work that complicate usual understandings of how health practitioners are trained and work. Research into the social organization of industry medical examinations details the politics, tensions and competing relations embedded in the coordination of doctors’ work, noting how these arrangements differentially affect labourers, union representatives, corporate owners and physicians who grapple with conflicting interests (Walters, 1984, 1985) and what has been described as dual loyalty dilemmas (London et al., 2006; Physicians for Human Rights, 2011). Health work carried out in public health offices, immigration medical clinics, prisons, immigration detention centres and immigration courts warrant scrutiny. For one thing, these institutional sites are outside of civil society’s direct gaze and the first-hand experience of most people. Health providers in these sites can be implicated in labour processes that catalyse ethically and professionally suspect practices. The service and care people receive or do not receive in these locations are connected to broader social relations stretching beyond people’s material interactions with doctors, nurses and social workers. These places can also be at once inside and outside of a state’s formal health and social care system, and lack the accountability mechanisms normally expected in health practice. Exploring, ethically analyzing and complicating the features of what happens in specific sites where health providers’ work is organized by state interests—making visible the implications of socially structured arrangements for people and the societies we inhabit—is the aim of this special symposium.
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 | 0.022 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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