L’épreuve de la conversation : comment se négocie la mise en œuvre des normes dans l’écriture d’un texte organisationnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous explorons dans cet article les dimensions constitutives et régulatrices des normes mobilisées par les acteurs dans la rédaction d’un texte organisationnel. À partir de l’extrait d’une réunion entre des membres d’un petit comité de gestionnaires supérieurs au sein d’une grande organisation parapublique canadienne, nous examinons les pratiques de communication par lesquelles les membres discutent et débattent des normes à privilégier dans l’écriture du texte sur lequel ils travaillent. Nous montrons surtout, sur la base de cette analyse, comment l’identité et la vocation même du comité sont engagées dans la constitution et la mobilisation des normes pertinentes à l’activité.
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 | 0.021 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".