Marching to Different Drum Beats: A Temporal Perspective on Coordinating Occupational Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we contribute a temporal perspective on work coordination across collaborating occupations. Drawing on an ethnographic study of medical specialists—surgeons, pathologists, oncologists, and radiologists—we examine how their temporal orientations are shaped through the temporal structuring of occupational work. Our findings show that temporal structuring of occupational practices develop in relation to the contingencies and materialities of their work and that this shapes and is shaped by specialists’ temporal orientations. Further, we show that differences in occupations’ temporal orientations have important implications for coordinating work. More specifically, our study reveals how the domination of one temporal orientation can lead to recurrent strain, promoting a competitive trade-off between the different temporal orientations in guiding interaction. This temporal orientation domination is accompanied by a persistent emotional strain and potential conflict. Finally, we suggest that, alternatively, different temporal orientations can be resourced in solving coordination challenges through three interrelated mechanisms, namely juxtaposing, temporal working, and mutual adjusting. In so doing, we show how temporal resourcing can be productive in coordinating work.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".