Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article essaie de démontrer le besoin d’une éthique de la communication en réseau fondée sur les notions du respect et de l’autorité d’un côté, et sur des mécanismes sociocognitifs de l’autre. Nous y discutons une nouvelle formulation théorique dans le but d’expliquer les processus interactionnels en réseau, notamment dans les communautés d’apprentissage, de pratique et d’intérêt mises sur pied grâce à l’utilisation de la technologie de systèmes asynchrones de forums. Ancré sur une esquisse d’un modèle de la communication en réseau, l’article essaie d’analyser comment des notions d’ordre moral s’appliquent dans les contextes sociocognitifs de la communication en réseau, quelles en sont les conséquences pour la constitution des communautés, et renseigne les individus ouverts au sujet de l’interprétation des mots pluriels qui s’ajustent selon le contexte.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".