Une histoire du discours critique nord-américain en communication : réseau(x) généalogique(s) entre radicalisme et modération
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present article est consacre a la genealogie du discours universitaire critique nord-americain au sein des etudes en communication – media studies, communication studies ou journalism studies. En prenant appui sur la sociologie de la science, l'etude proposee souligne la filiation entre les generations ascendantes et descendantes de chercheurs critiques. En prenant pour exemple des universitaires phares – de Herbert Schiller a Robert McChesney – et des facultes nord-americaines emblematiques de la cartographie universitaire critique en communication (Urbana-Champaign ou encore Burnaby), reunis par les conferences d’associations scientifiques, nous nous interessons a retracer la construction et le developpement du discours academique dissident nord-americain – (neo)marxien ou simplement progressiste. Notre recherche s'etend de la genese critique (annees 1950-1970), personnalisee par les universitaires critiques pionniers de l'etude en economie politique et des etudes culturelles, jusqu'a son apogee (annees 1980-2000), symbolisee par deux nouvelles generations de chercheurs. Il apparait evident que, lors de la production du savoir scientifique, la logique intergenerationnelle, l’approche theorique et l’activisme ideologique, se completent.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".