L’influence des dispositifs de médiation dans la structuration des pratiques culturelles. Le cas des correspondants du Centre Pompidou
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour étudier la médiation comme projet, procédure et processus, l’article se propose d’étudier les effets de l’action déployée par les médiateurs en fondant l’analyse sur une référence empirique : celle des correspondants de Beaubourg pour les années 1970-1980. L’analyse des effets de l’action des médiateurs permet d’en découvrir la pluralité : effets d’incitation, effets d’identification, effets de régulation, effets de fidélisation, que l’on découvre être régulièrement à l’origine de la transformation, souvent sensible, de pratiques culturelles. Les dispositifs de médiation opèrent donc un pouvoir de structuration des pratiques en transformant des façons de vivre des relations à l’art, des expériences culturelles. La mise en évidence de la multiplicité des effets des actions développées par les médiateurs suggère qu’ils définissent la part invisible des politiques de la culture, part invisible qui s’explique par le pouvoir ignoré, parce que rarement étudié, de ces mêmes médiateurs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".