« Penser autrement » la chirurgie esthétique d'un point de vue communicationnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une maniere de travailler ou penser autrement le phenomene de la chirurgie esthetique d'un point de vue communicationnel, en ayant pour premisse de depart que la chirurgie esthetique se doit de faire sens afin que d'eventuels patients, ou clients, en viennent a « choisir » d'y avoir recours. L'approche est ici en grande partie inspiree de Michel Foucault, notamment guidee par les conceptions de discours social, de pouvoir et de gouvernementalite. Elle considere la chirurgie esthetique comme une pratique et un produit culturels et de consommation, faisant l'objet d'une mise en marche et d'une mise en discours dans l'espace public et mediatique et s'articulant avec un contexte particulier, dans lequel la gouvernance des conduites ne peut se faire de facon evidente, autoritaire ou repressive. Des principes d'analyse qui jettent un eclairage particulier sur le phenomene de la chirurgie esthetique, soit sur les discours et les marches ainsi que les mecanismes de gouvernementalite qui la caracterisent dans notre contexte actuel et servent de support a sa promotion, a sa signification et j'ose ajouter, a son existence meme.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".