L’héritage critique des concepts mobilisés en communication publique : quelles implications pour le chercheur ?
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
Cet article propose une reflexion de nature epistemologique sur la scientificite du champ d’etudes de la communication publique. Quels sont les objets qui le composent? Sur quelle base se regroupent les chercheurs qui affirment appartenir au champ multidisciplinaire de la communication publique? En s’interrogeant sur la portee normative des concepts mobilises par les chercheurs de ce champ d’etudes, cette note de recherche vise a mieux definir la place de la critique dans le projet scientifique autour de la communication publique, en distinguant le monde de la connaissance et celui des idees. Elle explore les differentes perspectives autour de l’engagement du chercheur et se conclut par la proposition d’une approche alternative visant la reconciliation des points de vue. This paper discusses epistemological issues surrounding the scientific definition of public communication as a research field. What are its objects? On what basis do researchers claim to belong to this multidisciplinary field? This research note seeks to understand and define the role of criticism in the scientific project of public communication, distinguishing between the world of knowledge and the world of ideas. Finally, it highlights different perspectives regarding the researcher’s commitment and concludes with the proposal of an alternative approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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