Emotions and Client Participation in Jurisdictional Contestation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a model of how emotions shape the participation of professions' clients in episodes of jurisdictional contestation. Our model begins with a framing contest between a social movement that disrupts a profession's jurisdictional control and the profession that defends it. We theorize how, through adversarial framing efforts, the movement and profession each seek to evoke emotions in particular ways to shape the actions of clients in their favor. We then explore how the emotional resonance of this framing contest leads individual clients to support, to varying degrees, one or both contestants. We argue that clients experiencing different configurations of pride, anger, shame, and fear—or ambivalence when these emotions overlap in conflicting ways—enact one of five modes of participation. With this article, we contribute to the literature on professions by (a) conceptualizing client participation in jurisdictional contestation across analytical levels, (b) considering the role of a constellation of intertwined social emotions in this process, (c) and introducing a typology of five modes of client participation in jurisdictional contestation. We develop the model by drawing on empirical examples from health-related professions, but we also discuss its generalizability to other work domains and stakeholders.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it