MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038322768 · doi:10.4000/edc.1181

Normes et écriture de l’organisation

2010· paratext· fr· W3038322768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrice de La Broise, Sylvie Grosjean

Bibliographic record

VenueEtudes de communication/Études de communication · 2010
Typeparatext
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question des normes constitue un objet éminemment heuristique pour la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales, et plus particulièrement en sciences de l’information et de la communication, sachant que l’activité sociale est tout à la fois tributaire et productrice de ces normes. De nombreux chercheurs, tant français que nord-américains, ont étudié le rôle de diverses formes de textes, d’écritures dans les organisations. Le numéro 34 d’Études de communication invitera donc à prendre la mesure de l’écrit, celui-ci étant vu comme un objet de transaction, d’interaction, d’archivage et de pouvoir. L’entrée par l’écriture, dans l’articulation du procès et du dispositif, donnera à lire un ordre négocié de la prescription où les langages de la norme disent autant les contextes dans lesquels elle opère que la prescription elle-même. Cette livraison franco-canadienne voudrait ouvrir la discussion sur les manières dont le texte est « investi » et comment, en retour, il « investit » l’organisation. Quels sont ces textes qui, entre l’esprit et la lettre, feraient de l’action collective leur obligée ? Pourquoi, et comment, feraient-ils autorité ? Et le font-ils effectivement ? The question of standards constitutes an eminently heuristic topic for humanities and social science research and more particularly in information and communication science, knowing that social activity is both the producer and the product of these standards. Many researchers, French as well as North American, have studied the role of various forms of texts and writings within organizations. Issue 34 of Études de Communication shows the scope of writing seen as an object of a transaction, an interaction, a record, and power. Using writing as an entry point in the articulation of a process and a mechanism gives rise to a negotiated order of prescription where the languages of the standards say as much about the contexts in which they operate as the prescription itself. This Franco-Canadian effort hopes to open the discussion on the ways in which text is “invested in” and how, in turn, it “invests” in the organization. What are these texts that, between thought and letter, require collective action? Why and how are they authoritative? And do they do so effectively?

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEtudes de communication/Études de communicationSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207