Évolution du discours éditorial aux éditions Héritage et sa filiale, Dominique et compagnie : du destinataire au lecteur empirique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis plusieurs décennies, l’édition pour la jeunesse est dépendante de l’institution scolaire. Encore de nos jours, l’école est toujours le marché de prédilection des éditeurs. Les maisons d’édition actuelles tentent de percer ce marché en se conformant aux thèses de la psychologie cognitive de la lecture, qui, elles-mêmes influencent les instructions ministérielles en matière de lecture. Nous verrons, par l’analyse paratextuelle de la publication romanesque de la maison d’édition Héritage, que le discours éditorial de cette dernière a évolué avec les avancées en recherche sur la lecture tout en cherchant à répondre aux impératifs du marché. Ces influences conjuguées se reflètent dans le discours éditorial, ses orientations, les choix de publications, les représentations de la lecture et du lecteur de la part de l’éditeur.
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 | 0.028 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".