« Ce que les SIC font aux controverses environnementales, ce que les controverses environnementales font aux SIC »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce travail, nous explorons les interrelations et effets réciproques des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication (SIC) avec les controverses environnementales. Objet scientifique et sillon de recherche en SIC depuis les années 1990, la question environnementale se focalise bien souvent sur les crises et sur des objets par nature « controversés ». Cette étude, sans chercher l’exhaustivité ou à épuiser le sujet, s’attache à analyser la littérature scientifique, les projets de recherche et les travaux de chercheurs essentiellement francophones (France, Belgique, Canada, etc.) sur les controverses environnementales en SIC avec une double interrogation : D’une part, quelles sont les spécificités épistémologiques d’une approche en SIC sur les controverses environnementales ? D’autre part, dans une perspective réflexive, qu’est-ce que les recherches sur les controverses environnementales apportent aux SIC en général ?
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 | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".