Différentes conceptions de l’expression « information design » selon les disciplines et les champs d’expertise : une analyse de la littérature scientifique anglophone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le domaine d’expertise des auteurs qui utilisent l’expression « information design » influence-t-elle la manière la concevoir ? À notre connaissance aucune étude ne l’avait vérifié objectivement jusqu’ici. Notre analyse de 49 articles utilisant cette expression révèle qu’il y a une conception plus consensuelle chez certains domaines, mais pas dans d’autres. Is the field of expertise of the authors who use the expression “Information Design” really influencing the way it is conceived? To our knowledge no study had objectively studied this issue yet. Our analysis of 49 articles using this expression reveals that there is a more consensual perception in some areas than in some others.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".