MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790016414 · doi:10.7202/1042981ar

Faire mémoire sur internet. Les réseaux sociaux et sites de commémoration induisent-ils de nouveaux rapports à la mort ?

2018· article· fr· W2790016414 on OpenAlex
Florence Quinche

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’apparition de nouvelles technologies, tout d’abord par les réseaux sociaux sur Internet (texte, image, vidéo, émoticône), puis via les applications pour les téléphones intelligents ( Smartphones ) a profondément modifié les façons de communiquer, notamment des jeunes générations. Ces nouvelles technologies de la communication ont-elles aussi transformé les rapports à la mort et au deuil ? De nouvelles pratiques sont-elles apparues depuis la démocratisation d’Internet et des téléphones intelligents ? Dans cet article, on s’interroge sur deux types d’expression du deuil, dans un premier temps, sur la façon dont les individus expriment leur deuil dans les réseaux sociaux numériques et d’autre part sur la façon dont la presse et les journalistes créent des mémoriaux pour les victimes lors d’événements traumatiques (attentats, catastrophes).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.329 · 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