COMPANY DOCTORS ' PERCEPTIONS OF AND RESPONSES TO CONFLICTING PRESSURES FROM LABOR AND MANAGEMENT*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Company doctors are faced with contradictory pressures generated by conflicts be-tween labor and management. This paper examines the primary areas of conflict reported by a sample of company doctors in Ontario, Canada. It shows how doctors are constrained by pressures and how the structural context of practice shapes the nature of occupational medicine and encourages policies and practices which tend to be biased toward corporate interests. Doctors manage contradictory pressures by excluding certain contentious issues from their sphere of responsibility, attempt-ing to improve lines of communication with workers and unions, and claiming the role of objective third party on the basis of their medical expertise. This claim to medical objectivity and neutrality is an element of professional ideology which legitimizes their role and inhibits their examination of the conflicting interests of labor and management in relation to occupational medicine. A number of writers have argued that the interests and ideology of professionals coincide with those of the dominant class, and that professional expertise and authority legitimize existing power structures and operate as a form of social control (Brown, 1979; Daniels, 1972; Esland,
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".