Michael Anteby, Moral Gray Zones: Side Productions, Identity, and Regulation in an Aeronautic Plant.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moral Gray Zones is an innovative text based on an empirically rich study of organizational practices in an Aeronautic plant in Pierreville, France.Anteby defines gray zones as work settings where workers and their supervisors together engage in practices that are officially forbidden, yet tolerated by the organization.Gray zones challenge the distinction between right and wrong and are moral pursuits "in their own right -pursuits with which some bystanders might disagree, but that participants deem morally worthy" (p.123).One such gray zone-related practice, homer-making, is a worker's use of company materials or tools in his or her workplace, during work hours, to manufacture or transform artifacts that are not part of the official production of the organization.Homer-making is deceiving as it is meant to look like work, when in fact it is not.Anteby traces the historical record of homer-making, the polysemy of terms applied to homer-making cross-culturally, and the artistic iterations of and legal responses to homer-making.Homer-making in the Pierreville plant was frequently given to retirees and was granted at the time of retirement, often signifying the occupational position of the recipient.The book consists of eleven chapters broken up into three parts: motivations and setting, findings, and implications.Anteby utilizes a systems theory approach to organizations to attend to the formal and informal interdependencies individuals take part in at work, as well as the sentiments attached to these interdependencies that constitute the work social systems.These social systems extend beyond the work organizations into the family and community contexts.In addition to the formal and informal interactions that constitute work systems, he focuses on the more clandestine forms of interaction (in this case homer-making), that, in part, comprise social systems.Anteby then shows that when clandestine informal interdependencies involve workers and supervisors who mutually engage in officially forbidden organizational practices, they can be considered gray zones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".