Discourses of professionalism: Metaphors, theory and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionalism is a contested concept and different discourses have differed by scope and epistemology. The theory of communicative action integrates epistemology (knowledge interests) with that of scope (lifeworld). AIM: To pragmatically inform learning of professionalism. METHODS: apply the theory of communicative action to professionalism discourses. RESULTS: Previous professionalism discourses translated into four frames: technical; communicative; improvement, and critical. These can be viewed as four metaphors the scale; conversation; consensus conference, and protest. The theory of communicative action demonstrated that a critical frame was often lacking from discussions of professionalism and emphasized critiquing the assumptions made, the way power was utilized, and the ends to which actions were directed. Using these frameworks connected discourses on professionalism to other key medical discourses particularly quality improvement, patient centeredness, social justice, and the professional well-being. CONCLUSION: The theory of communicative action adds value by introducing criteria for the evaluation of individual truth claims that expands the discussion beyond accuracy to include sincerity, ethics and coherence; and it emphasizes promoting free speech and the inclusion of diverse views and stakeholders. The theory of communicative action provides a coherent and useful framework for viewing professionalism that integrates with broader discussions about philosophy, truth claims, and post-modern society.
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 | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".