Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belonging was one of the recurrent themes in an ethnography examining the social context of intergroup health care relations. Certain people, both patients and health care providers, were constructed as belonging in the social fabric of health care, whereas some were left on the margins and constructed as Other. In this article, the theme of belonging is explored through a multilayered analysis of the contexts of intergroup health care encounters. The macropolitics of belonging are situated in the larger societal setting, replete with practices that mark Other. Evidences of such Othering is then traced through organizational contexts, drawing on the exemplars of visiting hour policy, integration of alternative therapies, and provision of language services. Intergroup interactions are then reanalyzed in light of micropolitics at the individual nurse-patient level. The overall picture presented is one of a range of social, political, historical, and economic forces reproduced in everyday intercultural health care encounters.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".