Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing acknowledgement that organizations comprise a plurality of concerns and interests. Among community-based organizations, such plurality has been studied as so many tensions that impede work and that must be resolved. In contrast to such a view, we adopt the posture that the multiplicity of voices is something that organizational members, as individuals, actively and reflexively enact. Our study looks at such enactment in the context of the Women's Health Project, a community-based participatory research project focused on health promotion in a racially and ethnically diverse urban population center. More specifically, we study how peer health advocates (i.e., women from the district hired and trained to disseminate health information to their fellow residents) utter multiples voices (including by a single person) and interactionally manage them. We then observe the organizing effects that stem from three processes they enact: deploying alternative identities, transposing practices, and melding voices. We conclude by noting how these processes allow the peers to discursively bridge between the world of the clinic and their neighbourhood world and enable the Project to balance cultural competency with fidelity to health information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.028 |
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".