Relations between Professions and Organizations: More Fully Considering the Role of the Client
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
In much of the literature exploring the relations between professions and organizations, the relationship tends to be depicted as, or otherwise assumed to be in opposition. What this depiction conceals is a more complex and sometimes symbiotic relationship that can exist between professions and organizations. Still lacking in this more nuanced perspective, however, is an explicit acknowledgement of the influential role that clients of professions and organizations play in this relationship. In this paper we make the case for a more explicit and dynamic conceptualisation of the relationship between professions, organizations and clients based on a review of the classic and contemporary literature. Part of our goal is to more adequately address the inter-relationship between professionals and organizations by unpacking organizations, by highlighting the unique position of professions within organizations, and the different influences that clients can have on the orientation of professions within organizations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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