Political Work in Navigating Inhabited Institutions: Healthcare Research that Advances Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Framed from a perspective of inhabited institutionalism, this symposium brings together four empirical studies situated in the healthcare field that advance understanding of how actors use power and engage in political work to construct, maintain, and change institutions. These studies reveal new insights concerning actor interactions within institutionalized settings that provide important avenues for developing theory that can inform healthcare practice. Discussion of the presentations collectively will help to advance these novel approaches. Power Relations in Places of Social Inclusion Author: April L. Wright; Warwick Business School Expanding Contributions in Multidisciplinary Teams Author: Patricia Satterstrom; New York U. Attention-Crafting of Change Agents in Pluralistic Organizational Contexts Author: Zuhur Balayah; City, U. of London Author: Amit Nigam; City, U. of London Like Life, Like Death: The Work of Power at the End-of-Life Author: Tammar B. Zilber; Hebrew U. of Jerusalem
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".