Construction institutionnelle des discours: idéologies et pratiques dans une organisation supranationale
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore the way a supranational institution is imposing diverse forms of regulations on the production of discourse, and to interrogate the reasons for these choices and their consequences on the language practices within the institution. The research is built on the analysis of summary records, a frequently used text in different bodies of the specific institution I am working on: The United Nations. After exploring the general concerns of the UN about the documentation, I will explicate the underlying ideologies that appear in the instruction manuals for the writing of summary records. In finishing I will make a comparative analysis based on two different oral communications and their original summary records, focusing on the process of textualisation/transposition. This will allow me to interrogate the status of these specific documents within the ideology of the institution, but also to show how theideology of objectivity, central for the institution, is reflected through the linguistic conceptions and institutional practices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it