Users / Patients as Industrial Relations Actors: A Structurationist Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a structurationnist analysis model that aims to revise the classic industrial relations theories. The model, primarily based on the re-definition of the notion of actor in industrial relations (Bellemare, 2000), proposes to reconsider the frontiers of the industrial relations system (Bellemare and Briand, 2006; Legault and Bellemare, 2008), to replace the notion of “system” by the concept of “region,“ and to extend the model to the study of issues related to “life politics” (Giddens, 1991). The proposed model is illustrated by the study of the influence of users/patients on the work organization and on the decisions of the governing bodies of a French university hospital, and on the French health system (public policies, research priorities and methods, etc.). The results of the study show that the users/patients have become actors in the work relation regions through their mobilization on issues related to life politics: they have challenged the border between expert knowledge and common knowledge, and they have gained greater control over their health and the care they receive. Patients’ associations and individual patients, for their part, have modified the work relations regions at the organizational and worksite levels. Our results pave the way for future investigations that will integrate the dynamic conceptions of “actor” and of “regions of work relationships,“ as well as issues related to the life politics, in order to validate the generalizing scope of the model proposed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".