MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Situated Professionalism: Exploring the Tension between Incentives and Professional Ideology (WITHDRAWN)

2013· article· en· W2324308286 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jillian Chown

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedIdeologySalience (neuroscience)IncentiveSocial psychologyPublic relationsPsychologyAction (physics)PopulationSociologyPolitical scienceLawCognitive psychologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I develop a theory about situated professionalism by exploring how professionals resolve the competing influences of professional ideology – their formal codes of ethics and norms – and financial incentives. I propose and test a set of theoretical propositions highlighting that the salience of professional ideology as a driver of professional action depends on individual-, task- and environment-related factors. Using a difference-in-difference empirical approach, I test the hypotheses on the large population of fee-for-service physicians in the province of Ontario, Canada over a four year period. In particular, I examine how these professionals’ activity patterns change in response to financial incentives. The results indicate that while professionals do respond to financial motivations, the salience of their professional ideology is situated. I find evidence that the strength of the professional ideology in guiding action is greater when services are provided in environments that serve to reify the professional ideology and for activities that pose a greater threat to the profession’s norms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207