Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whistleblowing has been examined from various angles over the past 40 years, but not yet as a matter of epistemology. Whistleblowing can be understood as resulting from the improper transmission of critical knowledge in an organization (eg, knowledge about poor care or wrongdoing). Using the sociology of ignorance, we wish to rethink whistleblowing and the failures it brings to light. This article examines how nurses get caught in the strategic circulation of knowledge and ignorance, which can culminate in acts of whistleblowing. The sociology of ignorance helps understand how whistleblowing is borne out of the complex and strategic circulation of knowledge and ignorance that spells multiple and intersecting epistemic positions for nurses. In particular, various organizational blind spots position nurses as untrustworthy and illegitimate speakers in the "business" of the organization. Organizational failings therefore remain concealed while nurses become hypervisible, both as faulty care providers and as problematic information brokers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".