Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers continue to lament the lack of organisational focus in the sociology of health and illness. Although studies have increasingly focused on boundaries between organizations, little such research has focused on the formal boundaries within the hospital itself. Given its dramatic compartmentalisation, and continuing prevalence in health systems, the lack of organisational perspective in hospital research limits insights into the effects (as well as the construction) of the order of health work and care. With a greater emphasis on 'ordering' in the concept of negotiated order, the aim of this study is to examine the manifestation and consequences of the formal boundaries of hospital departments. Fieldwork featured 12 months of ethnography, including formal and informal observations, 80 audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews, and 56 field interviews, in the Emergency Departments (EDs) of two tertiary referral hospitals. Compared with in-patient hospital departments, the ED has limited legitimacy claims of organ-specific knowledge to transfer patients out of the ED. The manifestation of specialised knowledge hierarchies in organisational structures disadvantages patients who are older and who have chronic conditions, underpinning the argument that effects as well as the negotiation of stable organisational orders deserve increased attention in the sociology of health and illness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".