Preserving a Professional Institution: Emotion in Discursive Institutional Work
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied the discursive institutional work written by pharmacy leaders as part of a larger institutional project to preserve the institution of pharmacy. Our analysis of monthly editorials printed in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association from 1960 to 2003 shows how different discrete emotions were systematically incorporated in specific rhetorical argument structures over the course of an institutional project. In contrast to previous research, we show how discursive institutional work that is directed to members of the same specific social group (e.g., a profession) can vary over time in response to significant events and changes in practices of the target audience. Our longitudinal study shows that the relative frequency of argument types, the incorporation of emotion, and the content of rhetorical argumentation changed over time. We contribute to theory about the role of emotions in discursive institutional work by unpacking the role of discrete emotions and showing how such discourse evolves over time in concert with field conditions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it