MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346164056 · doi:10.1177/0891241615619991

The Managed Heart Revisited: Exploring the Effect of Institutional Norms on the Emotional Labor of Flight Attendants Post 9/11

2015· article· en· W2346164056 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Ethnography · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmotional Labor in Professions
Canadian institutionsNipissing UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional laborAgency (philosophy)NormativeCourtesySociologySocial psychologyAutonomyDiscretionPsychologyParticipant observationPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the emotional culture of flight attendants thirty-two years after Hochschild’s (1983) study, The Managed Heart. Using data collected by participant observation and informal interviews, we argue that flight attendants are empowered by post-9/11 institutional changes in security policies and as a result are using more discretion in how they perform courteous emotional labor. We put forward two interrelated concepts—the “9/11 effect” and “role shields”—to explain how a new emphasis on safety over courtesy in institutional policies provides cabin crew with a normative resource to achieve greater autonomy. We establish that flight attendants are now more assertive when they interact with passengers. By acknowledging the flight attendant’s post-9/11 experience and their increase in what we label emotional agency, this study offers a historical-comparative complement to Hochschild’s emphasis on emotive constraints.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.252 · 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