Constructing and Sustaining Counter-institutional Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do individuals and collectives construct and sustain identities that run counter to dominant institutions? We develop the notion of counter-institutional identity as involving individual and collective constructions of ‘who we are’ that are in strong opposition to dominant values and principles in the field, diverge from roles that are established through socialization and training, and involve practices that are proudly construed in direct contrast to field norms. We draw on findings from a comparative case study of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams to theorize about the identity work of groups and individuals that enables and constrains counter-institutional identity constructions. We develop a cross-level process model of encapsulation in which authoritative texts (or prescriptive documents) play a role in sanctioning and enhancing counter-institutional identities. The model shows how rigorous positioning against ‘who we are not’ (an “identity foil”) through practices of oppositional identity work are combined with practices of relational identity work that reinforce counter-institutional identities by positively valuing ‘who we are’ as superior to the foil. These practices are crucial to understanding how and why counter-institutional identities are created and sustained.
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 | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".