Linking Institutional Voids with Blind Spots Through Counter-Knowledge in the Spanish National Healthcare System
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
The current study suggests the presence of counter-knowledge to spread misperceptions or misunderstandings arising from the existence of institutional voids. Blind spots may be partly caused by such counter-knowledge that triggers the knowledge gaps of the actors in the face of the new information and knowledge society. Find or instance, when we talk about blind spots in the Spanish National Healthcare System (SNHS), we refer to the presence of incorrect stereotypes among the different actors, the feminisation of the profession even though the elderly population they serve continues to associate the figure of the doctor with the masculine role, the lack of awareness about the importance of data protection or cyberattacks. This study suggests that counter-knowledge is likely to result in the lack of clear vision after suffering from blind spots. Such counter-knowledge hinders people from things that most of us take for granted, which creates difficulties for engagement among multifaceted stakeholders with diverse expertise and specialities to overcome blind spots.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it