Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis bientôt une trentaine d’années, la littérature sur la communication des territoires s’est largement répandue, en particulier dans la recherche francophone. Pour autant, la « communication territoriale » reste profondément marquée par une sorte de dispersion (conceptuelle, géographique, etc.), ainsi que par une faible stabilisation théorique. Comment expliquer un tel contraste, à l’heure où de nouvelles préoccupations (citoyenneté, réseaux, crises identitaires…) interpellent la ville et l’espace local et, avec eux, la communication en tant que domaine de production de la théorie et des modes d’intervention publique ? À partir d’une étude sociohistorique, l’article revisite les processus de sédimentation de ce champ (la communication territoriale), tout en esquissant des explications de sa « crise de croissance » théorique. Une synthèse des perspectives de renouvellement théorique est également proposée, à la lumière de quelques récents travaux.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".