Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of Evan Willis’ notable book coincided with the appearance of similar Anglo-American accounts. Now, there are retrospectives on medical power. Why then and why now? Professional power was central because health care was the focus of political discussion at the time but is now less important vis-a-vis political struggles over neo-liberalism. Freidson played a key role in bringing medical power into focus. Medicine is also less sociologically prominent now because it is in fact less powerful than it was. There is a convergence between the power of the traditional professions and that of numerous other expert occupations. Despite assumptions to the contrary it is noted that neither the linkages of knowledge/expertise/power nor the existence of putatively self-regulatory organizations is sufficient to ensure professional dominance or control. Closure theory, the pre-eminent approach in the area of the professions, cannot adequately explain these changes in medical power. Rather, both challenges to medical power and the changing salience of medical dominance within sociology can be illuminated using the type of political economy approach which Evan Willis helped to pioneer.
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 | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".