L'émergence d'une théorie de la communication organisante: entretien avec James R. Taylor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article est le fruit d'un entretien avec le professeur émérite James R. Taylor, fondateur du Département de communication de l'Université de Montréal et figure reconnue dans le domaine canadien des médias, mais surtout auteur d'une théorie originale de la communication organisante, dont il retrace ici l'émergence. Ses concepts et sources d'inspiration - le résultat d'un parcours atypique, iconoclaste et inspirant - distinguent sa pensée des autres courants théoriques et historiques du champ de la communication organisationnelle. Une originalité telle, qu'on lui reconnaît aujourd'hui la paternité de « l'École de Montréal », un influent regroupement informel de chercheurs en communication qui participent - en divers lieux et par diverses voies - à approfondir et renouveler les intuitions radicales du professeur Taylor. C'est ce parcours distinctif qui forme la substance de cet entretien avec un chercheur toujours passionné, et considérablement actif et prolifique encore aujourd'hui, qui nous offre même un aperçu exclusif de ses prochaines publications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".