Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ramos¹Recebido em 1º de abril e aprovado em 16 de maio de 2019.Résumé: Cet article prend comme point de départ une expérience médiatique immersive afin de penser toute expérience à partir d'une épistémologie relationnelle.En s'attardant à la relation comme dimension autonome, il propose de penser l'imbrication du virtuel et de l'actuel dans l'expérience de sorte à développer un modèle diagrammatique de la communication.L'expérience immersive sert de tremplin pour la pensée.Elle permet de sortir d'une dimension représentative de l'expérience et d'affirmer toute expérience comme acte de communication à son stade le plus pur.Ce faisant, l'article rend compte de la dimension affective de la communication en affirmant sa complexité à partir de la mise en oeuvre des concepts mode d'expérience, mode d'expression et mode d'existence.La relation devient ainsi angle d'analyse pour l'étude du corps comme plan d'émergence de qualités esthétiques.En d'autres mots, ce que qui est proposé est l'opportunité de penser la communication à partir d'une dimension intensive -celle de l'affect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".