Qualite de la relation entre administration et usagers : la part informationnelle de l'asymetrie. Interpretations d'usagers et approche macro-discursive de la marge redactionnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basing ourselves on governmental concerns about how well administrators and users get along with each other, we examine evidence of communicational asymmetry in administrative mail through analyzing texts as well as reconstructions of meaning effected by user-readers. The reconstructed meanings reveal asymmetries on informational and socio-pragmatic levels that do not appear in the textual analysis of the mail. There are important discursive operations that contribute to the reconstruction of meaning, including the selection of the macro-speech act, the circumstants related to this act and socio-pragmatic evaluations of administrative requirements. Our results suggest possibilities for writing that go beyond principles of readability and simplicity, towards writing techniques that are more centered on readers, their information needs and social values. The analysis of an original text and a proposition for a validated simplification followed by one for a new rewriting al/ attempt to show that between authority, administrative practices, literariness, simplification, lexicography, readability and ... intelligibility, there are writing options that can enhance relationships between administrators and users -a space offered to writers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".