MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220997134 · doi:10.31468/dwr.955

Pratiques de rédaction claire de rédacteurs fonctionnels en Belgique francophone

2022· article· fr· W4220997134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adeline Müller, Thomas François

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedactionHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans les administrations belges francophones, on retrouve surtout des rédacteurs fonctionnels, c’est-à-dire des rédacteurs n’ayant pas suivi de formation en rédaction professionnelle, et qui réalisent des tâches de rédaction de façon occasionnelle. Nous avons étudié empiriquement, à l’aide d’un questionnaire en ligne, les pratiques de rédaction claire de 51 rédacteurs fonctionnels en Belgique francophone. Nous leur avons posé des questions sur leur vision du langage clair, leur travail quotidien et leurs attentes en matière d’aide à la rédaction claire. De plus, 30 rédacteurs ont également été confrontés à une tâche de réécriture d’extraits de textes administratifs authentiques pour vérifier la concordance entre les pratiques réelles de rédaction et les conseils issus de guides de rédaction claire. Cet article vise à présenter les résultats de cette enquête.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscourse and Writing/RédactologieSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207