Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement social, économique et technologique du domaine de la communication s’accompagne d’une spécialisation croissante des pratiques professionnelles et des formations qui leurs sont liées, au risque d’un délitement de la substance académique de ces dernières. Un tel délitement est-il pour autant inéluctable ? Se consacrant au dénominateur commun de ces filières – la production discursive médiatisée sous toutes ses formes – cet article examinera l’hypothèse selon laquelle les problèmes de cohérence perceptibles à l’échelle globale, celle de l’interdiscipline, sont structurellement assimilables à ceux que peut connaître, à l’échelle locale, tout programme de formation universitaire en communication, lesquels sont à leur tour similaires à ceux que l’on peut remarquer à l’échelle d’un simple cours ou même d’un manuel de communication à vocation pratique. On examinera dans un premier temps – en prolongeant une recherche antérieure – comment les connaissances et préceptes opératoires sont structurés dans les manuels, avant de transposer cette analyse à la structuration interne des programmes de formation, ce qui conduira enfin à montrer que la cohérence et les perspectives de la nébuleuse interdisciplinaire que forme l’enseignement de la communication dépend moins des bourgeonnements de sa périphérie que des articulations fondamentales qui en établissent le centre. Social, economic and technological developments in the field of communication are accompanied by increasing specialization of professional activities and academic programs, to the risk of a disintegration of the academic substance of the field. Is such a disintegration inevitable? Focusing on the common denominator of these curricula – discursive production in all its forms – this article will examine the hypothesis that the problems of consistency visible globally, those of the interdiscipline, are structurally similar to those that encounter, locally, most university programs in communication, which are in turn similar to those that can be observed on the scale of a single course or even of a practical communication guide. We will first examine how the knowledge and precepts are structured in textbooks, before transposing this analysis to the internal structure of training programs, which will lead us to show that consistency and prospects for communication in higher education depends less on its burgeoning periphery that on the fundamental articulations at the center of the interdiscipline.
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 | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".