Le « cas Raoult » ou la controverse médicale amplifiée par l’influence personnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La controverse médicale incarnée en France par le Professeur Didier Raoult a constitué un enjeu communicationnel inédit durant la pandémie de Covid-19. Surmédiatisé, le cadre traditionnel des controverses scientifiques a basculé vers l’espace socionumérique des confrontations d’opinions tranchées et des polémiques propices aux fake news et à la « ré-information ». Dans un premier temps, les auteurs explicitent la stratégie de communication « directe » adoptée par le professeur Raoult. Dans un deuxième temps, à partir de la page Facebook intitulée « Didier Raoult officiel », les auteurs procèdent à une comptabilité des interactions induites, durant trois mois, par les posts opérés sur ladite page. Enfin, dans un troisième temps, en examinant le partage de contenus opéré par des usagers-récepteurs de cette page, les auteurs mettent en lumière certains éléments d’homophilie au sein des groupes ainsi constitués
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".