Power and practices: questions concerning the legislation of health professions in <scp>B</scp>razil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developments in professional practice can be related to ongoing changes in relations of power among professionals, which often lead to changes in the boundaries of practices. The differing contexts of practices also influence these changing relations among health professionals. Legislation governing professional practice also differs from country to country. In Brazil, over the past 12 years, in a climate of deep disagreement, a new law to regulate medical practice has been discussed. It was sanctioned, or made into law, but with some notable changes, in July 2013. Of interest to us in this paper are the ways the proposed legislation, by setting out the boundaries and scope of medical practice, 'interfered' in the practices of other health professions, undermining many 'independent' practices that have developed over time. However, even taking into account the multiple routes through which practices are established and developed, the role of legislation that seems able to contradict and deny the historical realities of multiple, intersecting practices should be critically interrogated. In this paper, we use the theoretical resources of poststructuralist thinking to explore gaps, ambiguities, and power relations implicit in the discourses that constituted this law. We argue that although the new law can be understood as a social and political device that will interfere in the organization of other health professions' practices, such legislation is only part of what constitutes change in a consolidated professional practice. And while it is important to understand the effects of such legislation, healthcare practices are also realized or 'made real' through ongoing relations of knowledge and power, including, as we will see in this case, activities of resistance. The problem, then, is to understand the practical arrangements, including legislation, traditions and routines, values and knowledge that come to shape the practices of nursing in a particular context.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".