L’héritage critique des concepts mobilisés en communication publique : quelles implications pour le chercheur ?
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.
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 | 0.055 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".