MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127312144 · doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00162

Institutional Bases of Identity Construction and Reproduction: The Case of Underground Coal Mining

2002· article· en· W2127312144 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGender Work and Organization · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)ReproductionAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)SociologyHegemonyCoal miningEpistemologyAction (physics)Social constructionismPerspective (graphical)Set (abstract data type)Environmental ethicsLawPolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineeringEcologyGeographyCoalAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I use institutional theory to illustrate the process of identity formation and reproduction in the context of a male‐dominated work environment. Based on a case study of an underground colliery in Nova Scotia, Canada, I will illustrate the functioning of powerful institutions in two distinct senses. First, social obligations rooted in a ‘logic of appropriateness’ (March and Olsen, 1989) dictated appropriate behaviours for miners in their roles as underground miners and patriarchs. Second, internalized understandings of reality rooted in a ‘logic of orthodoxy’ (Scott, 1995) formed a set of constitutive rules to which miners adhered because it was inconceivable to do otherwise. I use a microinstitutional perspective (Zucker, 1991) that highlights the constraints embedded in many work contexts that serve to tacitly yet powerfully regularize behaviours in problematic ways. Social and historical conditions are therefore incorporated into this analysis as constitutive forces that are a product of human action. This manner of theorizing gender is consistent with Connell’s (1987) ‘theory of practice’ that seeks to understand social structure by focusing on what people actually do, the way human agency shapes history, and how practice itself is necessary for institutions to maintain their hegemony and resist change.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.178 · 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