Eliot Freidson’s sociology of professions: an interpretation for Health and Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to analyze theoretical conceptions of Eliot Freidson's Sociology of Professions scoped on health and nursing professions. METHODS: Eight nurses were interviewed, all involved in the development of the professional Council on the timeframe from 1975 to 1986. Documental resources were Laws, Ordinances, Resolutions, Reports, Meeting Minutes and Public Deeds. Information was organized as from literature and Eliot Freidson's conceptions, and thematic content analysis was carried out. RESULTS: the concepts authored by Eliot Freidson allowed for the development of a concept chart that portrays the nursing profession and that may be expanded for the other occupations in the health field, in consonance with professional organization in the country. Final Considerations: Eliot Freidson's framework, in interpretation for nursing, consolidates the profession with relative autonomy, expertise by Nursing Care Systematization and credentialism by professional normalizations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".