Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article retravaille la question pragmatiste de la publicité sous l’angle des relations entre le domaine public urbain et le processus politique. Il propose, tout d’abord, de revenir sur la façon dont la sociologie des espaces publics urbains inspirée d’une approche écologique et pragmatiste associe expérience urbaine et expérience démocratique. Puis, il questionne cette association à partir d’une enquête sur les relations de coexistence entre communautés au sein d’un espace public bruxellois. Le concept écologique d’« accommodation », que Robert E. Park avait forgé dans les années 1920-30, y est convoqué pour décrire l’expérience de situations de coexistence, voire de cohabitation, dans une proximité spatiale forte, des mondes socialement distants. L’aversion réciproque de leurs membres est contenue. L’accommodation s’accompagne d’une inhibition des processus requis pour une problématisation collective des conditions du vivre-ensemble. La reprise de ce concept est une invitation à réinterroger l’éthique de l’hospitalité dans les espaces publics de la ville et à porter un regard plus inquiet sur les vertus démocratiques de la publicité.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".