Narrer l’identité organisationnelle face au changement : l'Office national du film et sa rhétorique du financement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose de reconsiderer notre comprehension de l‘identite organisationnelle sous un angle rhetorique. En invoquant l‘organisation – sous toutes ses formes – dans leurs narratifs, les membres d‘une organisation lui assignent une forme d‘agentivite, elle devient un acteur narratif a part entiere. De fait, des competences sont attribuees a l‘organisation, ses membres se positionnent de maniere a les mettre de l‘avant et se coordonnent selon une structure narrative d‘echange, un schema de communication. Voila, selon nous, la portee argumentative de l‘identite organisationnelle. Une etude de cas a deux volets portant sur l‘Office national du film (ONF) decrit ici la mobilisation de l‘identite organisationnelle afin d‘obtenir un financement. Elle illustre comment les hauts dirigeants et les employes d‘une entreprise produisent un sentiment de coherence quant aux activites organisationnelles dont ils rendent compte.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".