Critique de la convergence : théories et enjeux du transmédia pour les sciences du sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article highlights the need for a holistic and interdisciplinary approach between the media and the new contexts and issues. Through a critique of the state of knowledge about Jenkins’ theories, the study focuses on transmedia. Highlighting a controversial scientific reception of the concept, it suggests a new historical and methodological conceptualization of this concept in order to better understand its rhetorical potentialities. It also clears the way for a reflexive and practical extension of the concept of transmedia. Established in many areas of daily life, the concept of transmedia is not mobilized in some areas of research. In fact this work introduces an analytical context of transmedia in the field of sport and makes a link in the conclusion between this approach and the actual scientific issues in sport. Thus, this study shows the need to develop an empirical enrichment of this concept especially in the field of sport.
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 | 0.033 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".