MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736723864 · doi:10.4000/communication.7341

Qui sont les lecteurs de mooks ?

2017· article· fr· W2736723864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie Vanoost

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis 2008, les mooks, d’épaisses revues privilégiant un journalisme de temps long — souvent narratif —, se multiplient en Europe francophone et misent sur des lecteurs prêts à investir du temps et de l’argent pour s’informer. Cet article présente les résultats d’une enquête menée auprès des lecteurs de mooks — principalement de XXI et 24h01 — visant à cerner leurs pratiques de lecture de ces revues, mais aussi leur profil sociodémographique, leurs habitudes en matière de consommation médiatique et d’information ainsi que leur rapport au récit et au livre. L’auteure offre une première image détaillée (d’une portion) du public des mooks, tout en soulevant de nouvelles questions et hypothèses par rapport à ce public.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunicationSame topicLiterature and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207