Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bien que l'appropriation d'Internet comme espace de discussions politiques soit un phénomène désormais reconnu et bien documenté, peu d'études se sont intéressées au détail des interactions dans un forum électronique dédié aux questions politiques. Dans cet article, nous ciblons la dynamique argumentative des discussions en observant comment des personnes participant à un forum soutiennent leurs points de vue et tentent de convaincre leurs opposants. Insatisfaits du modèle de l'espace public de Habermas tel que repris dans la littérature, qui contient selon nous un biais normatif défavorable aux échanges empiriques, nous utilisons le modèle de la discussion critique développé par l'approche pragma-dialectique de l'argumentation. Cette approche nous amène à constater les différentes étapes de l'élaboration d'une discussion argumentative, et nous permet de saisir certaines caractéristiques des interactions dans les forums électroniques Politiquébec, telles que l'interactivité et la progression dans les messages publiés, les sources d'instabilité et l'absence de résolution des différends au terme des discussions.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".