Designing Affiliative Objects: Investigating the Affiliations of Medical Identification Jewellery
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
affiliation of medical identification jewellery with paramedics as the central user group. In doing so, we use Suchman’s notion of the affiliative object to reframe medical identification jewellery as a compound epistemic object with affiliations to paramedics in the province of Ontario, Canada. The paper begins by providing background including the methods used to assess the use of medical identification jewellery. There follows a section on how the findings from fieldwork were used to develop a first iteration of design recommendations. A compliancy table then appends discussion of key findings and design recommendations. Three design concepts were found to be particularly successful in focus groups of participant paramedics. These were modified and evaluated in response to the feedback obtained. One concept was ultimately rejected, while the other two underwent redesign. The two successful concepts were developed into high-fidelity prototypes. The design concepts presented here are observably original and not copies of previous designs. As affiliative objects, they aim to facilitate diagnostic work in emergency response. In doing so, they follow Lucy Suchman’s (2005: 381) injunction that “the constitution of objects is a strategic resource in the alignment of professional identities and organizational positionings.”
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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