Influence et organisations : cultures, pratiques et mises en perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’influence comme objet de recherche en sciences sociales, et en communication en particulier, mobilise de nombreuses définitions et approches, mettant en leur centre aussi bien les médias que les interactions sociales. L’influence est ainsi abordée par un angle psychosociologique comme le résultat d’un acte de communication sur les comportements ou représentations sociales des publics, comme le résultat d’un processus de mise en circulation des idées et des opinions, ou encore comme un ensemble de pratiques et de stratégies visant la persuasion. Ce dossier s’est construit autour de trois grands thèmes qui fédèrent les chercheuses et chercheurs du Laboratoire sur l’influence et la communication (Labfluens) de l’Université du Québec à Montréal, à savoir l’influence comme un concept à mieux circonscrire (1) et comme un ensemble de pratiques communicationnelles (2) qui s’insèrent dans un marché dont les métiers évoluent en conséquence (3). Influence as an object of research in the social sciences, and in communication in particular, mobilises numerous definitions and approaches, placing both the media and social interactions at their centre. Influence is thus approached from a psychosociological angle as the result of an act of communication on the behaviour or social representations of the public, as the result of a process of putting ideas and opinions into circulation, or as a set of practices and strategies aimed at persuasion. This dossier is built around three major themes that unite the researchers of the Laboratory on Influence and Communication (Labfluens) at the University of Quebec in Montreal, namely influence as a concept that needs to be better defined (1) and as a set of communication practices (2) that are part of a market whose professions are evolving accordingly (3).
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".