MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005409396 · doi:10.4000/communication.4113

Les enjeux des discours de débat dans les médias

2005· article· fr· W2005409396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhysicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article porte sur un genre particulier de débats en vogue dans les médias électroniques : les débats-spectacle. Bien qu’ils affichent une prétention civique d’intérêt général, ces débats visent avant tout à divertir et à fidéliser des auditeurs et téléspectateurs considérés comme des consommateurs d’information. À ce titre, les débats-spectacle satisfont la visée commerciale des médias d’information qui prime de plus sur la visée civique consistant à faire réfléchir, voire à éduquer, des auditeurs et téléspectateurs considérés comme des citoyens. À partir d’une étude de cas emblématique du genre (l’émission télédiffusée française : Du fer dans les épinards), l’attention est portée sur les comportements et le discours de l’animateur vedette avec l’hypothèse que ceux-ci fonctionnent comme l’un des révélateurs du fonctionnement et de l’évolution des pratiques médiatiques de débats et de leurs enjeux.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it