Convergence : comment le travail des journalistes gravite autour des professionnels de la communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Des entrevues avec 20 journalistes montrent qu’ils ont l’impression d’avoir peu de marge de manœuvre face aux professionnels de la communication. L’analyse de leur discours fait apparaitre trois niveaux de relations obligées avec les relationnistes. Un premier niveau où les mécanismes mis en place par les relationnistes pour se rendre incontournables fonctionnent ; dans le second, les obligations déontologiques et les exigences de production des journalistes les poussent à se tourner vers les relationnistes ; dans le troisième, les journalistes travaillent en équipe avec les relationnistes. Dans chacun de ces trois espaces, les choix des journalistes sont limités. Cette description de leurs échanges au quotidien met en lumière la convergence entre les deux professions. Elle permet de comprendre pourquoi les informations journalistiques contiennent un fort pourcentage d’éléments venant des relations publiques.
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 | 0.035 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".