MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791837404 · doi:10.14428/rcompro.vi4.763

Que font les communicants pour sauver leur métier ?

2017· article· fr· W2791837404 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Ivanov

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Communication & professionnalisation · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFontArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les métiers de la fonction communication dans les organisations publiques françaises de sécurité sociale ont beaucoup évolué depuis deux décennies. Si dans les entreprises privées, la mise en place des services communication a été accompagnée par une prise de conscience du rôle et de la valeur des métiers de la fonction communication, dans les organisations publiques, les communicants sont toujours en train de chercher une reconnaissance et une légitimité de leur savoir- faire et de leurs compétences. Le manque de règlementation interne et externe et de cadres institutionnels de reconnaissance professionnelle oblige les communicants à chercher des voies pour préserver l’intégrité de leurs services qui est menacée par la réduction de leurs effectifs. Cette recherche s’intéresse à la façon dont les communicants publics tentent de garantir l’existence de leur métier, en projetant une image voulue et valorisée de soi. Dans cette quête de légitimité professionnelle, la métacommunication devient une des missions fondamentales des communicants dans la recherche de reconnaissance de la « typicité » de leur métier. The every-day activities of the communication practitioners in the French public organizations have evolved deeply for the past two decades. The establishment of the communication departments in the private companies was backed by the growing awareness of its primacy and the increasing strategic role of the communicator’s profession. In contrast, the communication practitioners in the public organizations are still on the quest for recognition of their legitimacy and know-how, because of the lack of internal and institutional regulations and rule-makings. This research aims to investigate the way in which the communication practitioners in the organizations of the public sector attempt to guarantee the existence of their profession through self-work everyday practices. In this struggle for professional legitimacy, the meta-communication becomes one of the fundamental missions of the communication departments in order to acquire recognition of their professional « typicity ».

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.367
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.109 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Communication & professionnalisationSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207