Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le contexte où les individus adaptent leurs consommations culturelles aux nouvelles réalités technologiques et sociales du vingtième et du vingt et unième siècle sans adapter aussi rapidement leurs catégories de pensée héritées du dix-neuvième siècle, cet article prend acte de la faible productivité empirique et théorique de l’opposition entre cultures nobles et communication de masse. D’une part, il propose le concept de médiaculture pour marquer la fin d’une période d’oppositions systématiques et l’ouverture d’une période d’hybridité, qui laisse pourtant toujours sourdre des effets persistants de partage. Ce concept articule trois niveaux de réflexion : une vision anthropologique de la culture, une appréciation esthético-historique des types de culture engagés dans la production et la réception des œuvres et, finalement, la culture pensée comme une intrication de pouvoir et de sens. D’autre part, ce texte présente le développement des cultural studies en France à travers ses multiples résistances ainsi que les divers courants s’y inscrivant.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".