Communication politique et diversité culturelle : État de la question
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
La litterature en communication politique s'interesse de plus en plus aux phenomenes de persuasion politique en situation interculturelle, mais les recensions d'articles touchant a cette question particuliere sont pratiquement inexistantes. Cet article a pour but d'etablir un etat de la question sur le sujet, en s'attardant non seulement a la communication politique visant a convaincre l'electeur de voter pour un certain parti, mais egalement a celle plus generale qui cherche a persuader les electeurs d'origine immigrante de se presenter tout simplement aux urnes. Trois principaux types d'articles sont recenses : ceux qui etudient le comportement politique des membres des communautes culturelles, ceux qui tentent de cerner l'influence des strategies de communication directe sur les comportements politiques de cet electorat et enfin ceux qui s'interessent a l'influence sur les membres des communautes culturelles des strategies de communication de masse. La conclusion globale de ces articles demeure toutefois que pour etre efficaces, toutes les strategies de communication doivent s'adapter a la specificite ethnique de leur auditoire.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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