MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171173013 · doi:10.7202/1064210ar

Progrès et civilisation, éducation et publicité dans les médias

2009· article· fr· W2171173013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniela Giusto

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le message publicitaire naît d’un procédé technique complexe et raisonné dans le but d’exercer une influence sur le consommateur. Mais, à la différence du message conçu pour faire de la réclame, le message publicitaire d’intérêt public relève d’une double nature, conative et rhétorique bien sûr, mais aussi artistique et culturelle. La démarche d’un texte pour éduquer au progrès est à raison celle d’un message illocutoire, parce qu’il s’agit d’un acte de langage influant sur les rapports entre émetteur et récepteur, mais elle est aussi destinée à prolonger ses effets dans le temps, créer des suggestions et inviter le destinataire à la réflexion. Or, puisque ce genre de pub véhicule des thématiques et des problèmes communs en Europe, elle peut devenir un instrument didactique unitaire précieux pour conduire les étudiants vers la prise de conscience que toute société civile en Europe a besoin de se donner des conduites morales cohérentes. La citoyenneté européenne, loin d’être un concept exclusif réservé au vieux continent en tant que culture dominante, doit se raccrocher aux valeurs impérissables de l’être universel : le respect de l’autre, la tolérance et la solidarité peuvent s’enseigner aussi à travers un langage multimédia, multilingue et multiculturel, afin que l’Europe devienne un modèle actif et concret de progrès.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0180.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSens publicSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207