Coordinating Flexible Performance During Everyday Work: An Ethnomethodological Study of Handoff Routines
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
Our paper examines the challenge of coordinating flexible performance during everyday work. We draw on routine dynamics and ethnomethodology to examine how intensive care unit (ICU) physicians coordinate their actions—flexibly yet intelligibly—as they handoff patients at change of shift. Through our analysis of interview and video data, we demonstrate how physicians use the sequential features of the handoff routine—i.e., the expected moves and their expected sequence—to adapt each performance of the routine to the unique needs of each patient. We show the need for ongoing coordinating despite a strongly shared ostensive pattern and we illustrate how participants use the sequential nature of the ostensive pattern of the routine as a resource for flexible performance, to manage sequential variation and the sufficiency of moves at transitions. Our findings contribute to the routine dynamics and coordination literatures by providing a more nuanced understanding of how mutual intelligibility is achieved through coordinating, whereby participants create the conditions to move forward with a common project.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it