Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".