Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une discussion théorique autour de la notion de l’animateur de communauté dans le domaine politique. Plus précisément nous nous intéressons au rôle que ce dernier joue dans l’émergence de débats délibératifs au sein d’échanges ayant lieu sur les pages Facebook de partis politiques allemands. En s’appuyant sur les recherches portant sur les modérateurs de forums politiques et sur la recherche à propos de la gestion de communauté en communication marketing, le texte se questionne sur la relation entre l’animateur de communauté, son public et le parti politique. Ce faisant, trois hypothèses sont élaborées. Premièrement, le statut de l’animateur de communauté au sein de son équipe pourrait jouer un rôle dans le développement des échanges sur les pages en question. Deuxièmement, la modération silencieuse ne favoriserait pas l’émergence de débats. Troisièmement, le maintien de la frontière de l’espace de discussion susciterait des tensions entre internautes et partis politiques. À travers le concept du gatekeeping (contrôle des flux d’information), il est possible de capturer les rapports de force qui se déploient entre la communauté, l’animateur et le parti politique dans ce contexte. This article reflects a theoretical discussion about the notion of community management in German politics. It shows the role that the community manager plays in exchanges that take place on Facebook pages of political parties. More precisely, the article focuses on the community manager’s influence on the emergence of deliberative debates. Referring to research about moderation of political parties’ discussion forums as well as to marketing and communication studies on community management, this text questions the relation between community manager, its public and the political party. In doing so, three hypotheses are elaborated. First, the community manager’s status within the communication department and the party itself could play a role in the development of exchanges on the pages in question. Second, silent moderation would not favour emergence of debates. Finally, the maintenance of the frontiers defining the sphere of discussion may provoke tensions between the participants and the party. By applying the concept of gatekeeping, we are able to capture the power relations between users, management and political party in this context.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".