Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The book examines the role of support workers, particularly in their interface with the health professions. This disparate, but very large, group of workers is defined by providing face-to-face care and other support of a personal or confidential nature to service users in a variety of settings. However, crucially, they do not hold qualifications accredited by a professional association and are not typically formally regulated by a professional body (Saks and Allsop 2007). The volume is original as there are no known books to date that analyse from a sociological or wider social science perspective the role of support workers in the health care labour force in these or other terms. This edited collection attempts to do just that from a largely neo-Weberian theoretical perspective which examines professions in terms of the various forms of social closure that they have gained in a competitive market, underwritten by the state – based on legally underpinned and exclusionary registers of practitioners protecting them against outsiders (Saks 2010). The achievement of this position, which brings privileges of income, status and power to insiders, is seen as being linked to the interests of players in such top-dog occupations. Although neo-Weberian writers have been criticised in practice for not giving sufficient attention to non-professional workers in their analyses of professionalisation (Saks 2016a), this volume puts such groups centre stage, including in their relationship to professions. The focus here, though, is on the health arena – in particular on research on various aspects of the operation of the huge cohort of health support workers who are critical providers of health care globally. In so doing, the book takes an international perspective drawing on illustrations from several modern neo-liberal countries, spanning from the UK, The Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden through Japan and Australia to Brazil and Canada. As such, it variously examines the relationship of such relatively invisible workers with the myriad of health professions which sit at a variety of levels in the pecking order.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.012 |
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".