Du consentement à la délibération : une critique communicationnelle du marketing politique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article cherche à construire scientifiquement une nouvelle approche de la communication publique. En effet, celle-ci est aujourd’hui dominée par le marketing politique. Pourtant, plus cette approche marketing se développe, plus les citoyens se défient de leurs institutions. La thèse défendue dans cet article est que la communication politique des institutions gagnerait à distinguer plus clairement communication, marketing et manipulation. Clarification qui conduit à changer d’objectif stratégique : non pas rapprocher les institutions de leurs publics, mais favoriser une culture commune respectueuse de la diversité culturelle des individus en créant un conflit intégrateur. Ce que nous appelons une approche délibérative de la communication publique. Cette dernière ne s’appuie pas sur les travaux nord-américains sur la communication persuasive, l’argumentation ou la délibération, mais sur les travaux francophones concernant l’incommunication.
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 | 0.047 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".