Services integration, professional autonomy and standardization. Representations of standardization among case managers in the case of integrated service networks implementations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Social work (SW) practices are undergoing major transformations generated by change in the governance of health and social policies. These transformations are based on two logical performance, one managerial, resting on New Public Management principles, and another clinic, supported by evidence based practices. The implementation of integrated services is traversed by these two logics that shape it and call a relative standardization of clinical practice. THEORY: Standardization of practices should be conceived as bi-dimensional, like a normative system heterogeneous to practice of SW but also like a set of incorporated and collective routines sustaining the professional autonomy of SW. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of representations of standardization from a corpus of interviews with 10 case managers on two implantation sites of PRISMA-France pilot project. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Standardization appears weakly conceptualized in social workers practices. Managerial dimensions of standardization dominating in their representations. However, some forms of standardization associated to tools for information exchange and evaluation are seen by SW as vectors of efficiency in clinical practice. SW have a complex relationship to the multifaceted nature of the standardization that requires a nuanced analysis of its effects on their practices.
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 | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".