Selling Mediation: Mimetic, Distancing, and Appellating Practices in the Marketing of an Emerging Profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals both within and outside the legal profession have been drawn by the ‘promise’ of mediation. In it they see a means for facilitating communicative exchanges between actors in conflict, which they view as a dramatic improvement on the adversarial practices of the formal legal system. However, despite the appeal of mediation to potential practitioners, there is not yet sufficient consumer demand to sustain the number of people who possess mediation skills. This has resulted in an overcrowded mediation market in which practitioners are forced to market themselves so as to compete for a limited clientele. In this context, the emerging mediation profession, with its still forming regulatory bodies, confronts the challenge of managing the image of mediation in the face of the increased marketing activities of mediators. In this paper we examine these marketing activities (described as mimetic, distancing and appellating practices) and their consequences for the public presentation of the mediation “profession.”
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".