Formats of responsibility: elective surgery in the era of evidence‐based medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article illustrates what pragmatic sociology refers to as investments in form, by examining the formats created and used by a group of surgeons to determine when elective surgery for pelvic floor disorders could be responsibly undertaken. Drawing upon ethnographic observations of surgical consultations at an academic medical centre in Canada, we show how two specific formats - that the patient is sufficiently bothered and the patient accepts the risks of surgery - allow for justifiable action in conditions of uncertainty and contingency and in light of the demands of dominant imperatives in medicine and health care, especially evidence-based medicine (EBM). We argue that an analytic of justification is necessary for understanding when and how surgery is offered and elected for, and for considering how surgical consultations might be improved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.143 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".