Innovation in clean-room construction: a case study of co-operation between firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines partnering between a large client, multinational contractors and specialist suppliers, and local subcontractors involved in a project to construct clean room facilities. An ethnographic approach is used, which demonstrates the changing attitudes, values and the new working arrangements that emerged. The social bond of a ‘construction challenge’ was the basis of trust and sharing risk in a ‘quasi-fixed network’. In place of formal contracts, ongoing bargaining and continuous negotiation took place. However, the client was seen to dominate the construction process. Shared workspaces or ‘liminal zones’, betwixt and between firms, were created to allow collaboration. These are argued to be a practical organizational approach to sharing information and co-ordinating inter-firm activities. Among trades, agreements were struck to exchange training and apprenticeships for allowing foreign specialists and equipment to be imported by the high-purity gas supplier. Liminal zones appear to function as on-the-job classrooms for rapidly training workers in unfamiliar construction techniques and systems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".