Institution et légitimation d’une quasi-discipline : le triple destin (sciences, études et champ) de la communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les processus de diffusion et d’institutionnalisation réfèrent à des logiques différentes. L’institutionnalisation s’ancre dans un univers de rapports de pouvoir pour la captation des ressources matérielles et symboliques en vue de la reconnaissance et de la légitimation d’une discipline en voie de constitution, une quasi-discipline. La diffusion, d’un autre côté, subit l’effet d’un tropisme qui nécessite de faire la géographie des disciplines existantes et éventuellement concurrentes afin de comprendre par quels moyens, à destination de quels acteurs et contre qui s’effectuent la construction et la circulation conjointes des objets épistémiques dans le domaine des études en communication. Le présent article analyse le double processus d’institutionnalisation épistémique et sociale de la communication dans différents contextes à travers les notions de sciences, d’études et de champ.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| 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 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".