Comment les textes écrivent l’organisation. Figures, ventriloquie et incarnation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans quelle mesure peut-on dire que les textes écrivent l’organisation ? Cet article montre d’abord qu’une organisation s’incarne dans un agencement de figures, qu’elles soient textuelles, humaines, architecturales ou machiniques. Le monde organisationnel est donc un monde pluriel, dont le mode d’existence ne se réduit pas à sa seule actualisation communicationnelle. L’agentivité textuelle doit être comprise comme la médiation par laquelle ces figures à ontologie variable sont ventriloquisées dans l’interaction, donnant du poids (et donc de l’autorité) à ce qui est mis de l’avant par les interlocuteurs humains. Si les textes écrivent l’organisation, ils l’écrivent donc à travers toutes les figures qu’ils font et qui les font exister, parler et agir.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".