MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792207729 · doi:10.14428/rcompro.vi5.843

Communication publique et responsabilité citoyenne

2017· article· fr· W2792207729 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Communication & professionnalisation · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.253 · 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