Governing Professionals Through Discourses of Resilience and Value: A New Legitimation for Ontario Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a neoliberal turn, the government of Ontario cut more than $750 million in funds that were traditionally received by pharmacies through dispensing medication. These funds were replaced with a state-funded program that would reimburse pharmacists for professional services related to patient care. The problem facing professional elites from Ontario pharmacy’s advocacy body was how to govern members of a self-regulating profession to switch subjectivities (identities) from the traditional dispenser of medication to providing patient care for profit. We address a gap in the literature and pose the question, how are the rank and file of allied healthcare professions governed by professional elites to become responsibilized subjects who will adopt state/profession agendas? Using a Foucauldian governmentality framework, our findings reveal that the rank and file are governed by elites through two technologies: resilience and value making possible a new “legitimate” pharmacist subjectivity related to the market and health care sustainability.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.122 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".