Positioning theory and the negotiation of information needs in a clinical midwifery setting
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
Abstract Studies of everyday life information seeking have begun to attend to incidental forms of information behavior, and this more inclusive understanding of information seeking within broader social practices invites a constructionist analytical paradigm. Positioning theory is a constructionist framework that has proven useful for studying the ways in which interactional practices contribute to information seeking. Positions can construct individuals or groups of people in ways that have real effects on their information seeking. This article identifies some specific types of discursive positioning and shows how participants in a clinical care setting position themselves and one another in ways that justify different forms of information seeking and giving. Examples are drawn from an ongoing study of information seeking in prenatal midwifery encounters. The data consist of audio recordings of nine prenatal midwifery visits and of 18 follow‐up interviews, one with each participating midwife and pregnant woman. The midwifery model of care is based on a relationship in which the midwife provides the pregnant woman with information and support necessary for making informed decisions about her care. Midwife–client interactions are therefore an ideal context for studying information seeking and giving in a clinical encounter.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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