Configuration du champ de la Communication Organisationnelle au Brésil : problématisation, possibilités et potentialités
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cet article est de présenter la configuration des études en Communication Organisationnelle au Brésil. Seront ainsi évoquées les potentialités de ces recherches ainsi que les principaux problèmes qui se dressent devant les chercheurs qui œuvrent à la consolidation de ce champ. Une première difficulté est liée à la relation existant entre la Communication Organisationnelle et les Relations Publiques. Un deuxième problème concerne les tentatives de construction d’un corps conceptuel, cohérent et consistant, encore en émergence. Le troisième obstacle a trait à l’absence d’une problématisation scientifique intégrant la perspective critique, prenant en compte l’articulation des notions telles que politique, éthique, dialogue, conflits moraux, souffrance sociale, identité, discours, pouvoir et/ou pratiques de résistance. Malgré ces trois éléments, le texte met au jour les innombrables potentialités de croissance de ce champ, possibilités dont témoignent les recherches actuellement en cours dans nos Universités, laboratoires et groupes de recherche.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".