La démocratie et les nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication : illusions de la démocratie directe et exigences de l’action collective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le potentiel démocratique des nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication (NTIC) comme Internet paraît souvent lié à l’accès à l’information, à la transparence et à la délibération, conditions nécessaires de la démocratie. Mais en limitant la démocratie à ces conditions, on valorise de manière excessive la démocratie directe, on postule que le potentiel technologique se réalise toujours et que les citoyens et les citoyennes sont politiquement actifs. Cette conception de la démocratie fait fi des processus de gestion politique et des logiques sociétales — par essence non démocratiques — comme la mondialisation et la libéralisation des échanges, auxquels sont soumis les NTIC. La démocratie et les NTIC doivent plutôt être pensées de manière concomitante en discernant quatre failles de la démocratie libérale et suggérant deux voies pour un usage fructueux des NTIC : la démocratisation de l’État et celle de la société civile.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".