Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine le lien théoriquement indissoluble entre la communication publique et le paradigme éthique de la responsabilité : qu’est-ce qu’une communication publique responsable, ce à quoi s’engage implicitement tout professionnel de la communication ? Cette responsabilité se fait citoyenne dès lors que c’est la démocratie elle-même qui autorise l’exercice professionnel du métier de communiquer. Une structure à double renvoi ouvre à terme sur une autre éthique, celle plus fondamentale de la dette. Si en effet une société garantit les conditions de la communication publique, elle est en droit d’exiger en retour le respect de ses principes fondamentaux : outre l’État de droit, la pluralité légitime des points de vue, la véracité et la justesse du discours, le respect de l’intelligence des autres et, par extension, des différents publics auxquels elle s’adresse. Mots-clés : communication, espace public, citoyenneté, éthique, responsabilité, dette. This article examines the theoretically indissoluble link between the public communication and the ethical paradigm of responsibility. What is responsible public communication, something which each communication professional implicitly commits to ? This responsibility applies to the citizen since it is democracy itself which authorizes the professional exercise of the task of communication. A structure with two way reciprocity leads to another fundamental consideration, that of the ethics of debt. If indeed a society guarantees the conditions of public communication, in return it requires respect for its fundamental principles: that of Rule of Law, legitimate plurality points of view, truthfulness and correctness of speech, respect for the intelligence of others and, by extension, for various publics that it addresses. Keywords : communication, public communication, citizen, ethics, responsibility, debt.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".