MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062654345 · doi:10.1177/016224390202700303

It, Gender, and Professional Practice: Or, Why an Automated Drug Distribution System Was Sent Back to the Manufacturer

2002· article· en· W2062654345 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Technology & Human Values · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyAutonomyNursingClinical pharmacyControl (management)Pharmacy practiceMedicineMedical educationPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research has focused on how gender and computer technology contribute to the structuring of professional roles. A case study was carried out at a long-term care facility in Winnipeg, Canada, in which a nursing unit-based automated system had been installed to control the distribution of medication to patients. A questionnaire was distributed to all nursing staff, and detailed interviews were carried out with pharmacists and nursing administrators. It was found that gender and technological change did interact to produce an ambivalent impact on professional practice and identities. New clinical pharmacy positions were established; however, the pharmacy was split into clinical and deskilled data entry positions. Nurses hoped the new system would improve medication accuracy, but they resented features that controlled their time and their autonomy. Neither group accepted the new system as a boundary object effectively linking the nursing and pharmacy departments, and it eventually was returned to the manufacturer.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
gptScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it