MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785402528 · doi:10.14428/rcompro.vi5.883

Un modèle multi-niveau de prise de décision éthique pour les relations publiques

2017· article· fr· W2785402528 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Communication & professionnalisation · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Afin de soutenir leurs membres qui sont aux prises fréquemment avec des problèmes de nature éthique, plusieurs associations professionnelles en relations publiques se sont dotées de modèles de prise de décision éthique qu’elles mettent à la disposition de leurs membres à des fins de référence et de formation continue. Cependant, comme nous le démontrons dans cet article, les modèles proposés sont nettement insuffisants lorsqu’il s’agit d’aborder des questions éthiques plus complexes. Ainsi, l’objectif de cet article est de fournir aux théoriciens et aux praticiens des outils conceptuels permettant de mieux penser cette complexité dans la prise de décision éthique. Pour répondre à cet objectif, nous présenterons, dans un premier temps, un cadre conceptuel qui comprend le champ d’application du modèle, ses bases théoriques, de même que des techniques avancées de pondération, de mise en équilibre des intérêts et de gestion de la réputation. Parallèlement à cet effort de théorisation, nous allons voir quelques applications de ce cadre conceptuel à travers l’analyse de cas pratiques. En guise de conclusion, nous allons faire une synthèse des points saillants et évoquer d’autres avenues pour la recherche sur ces questions. Mots-clés: éthique, prise de décision, relations publiques, réputation, gestion du risque. To support their members who frequently face ethical issues, several professional associations in public relations have developed models of ethical decision-making that they make available to their members for reference and training. However, as we demonstrate in this paper, these models are clearly insufficient to address more complex ethical issues. Thus, the aim of this article is to provide theoreticians and practitioners with conceptual tools to better reflect this complexity in ethical decision-making. To meet this objective, we will first present a conceptual framework that includes the scope of the model, its theoretical foundations, as well as advanced techniques for weighting interests and reputation management. In addition to this theoretical effort, we will see some applications of this conceptual framework through case analysis. In conclusion, we will summarize the highlights and discuss other avenues for research on these issues. Keywords: ethics, decision-making, public relations, reputation, risk management.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.265 · 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