Perspectives en communication - Deuxième partie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que la communication connaît un ensemble de bouleversements liés à la globalisation et à la généralisation de l'usage des technologies numériques pour communiquer en dépits de fractures numériques toujours présentes, alors que les sciences de la communication cherchent à rendre compte d’interactions de plus en plus complexes, de processus qui constituent l’organisation humaine, il reste pertinent de (re)penser la manière dont la communication, en tant que champ, permet d'appréhender ce contexte actuel. Sans tomber dans les pièges de la « nouveauté » et du changement, mais sans non plus faire abstraction des contingences contextuelles nouvelles, de perspectives en développement nous invitant à reconsidérer le non-humain, la matérialité dans les cadres d’études de la communication, nous pouvons nous demander où en sont les sciences de la communication. While communication knows a set of changes related to globalization, and to the widespread use of digital technologies to communicate despite the still present digital divide, while communication sciences seek to account for the interactions increasingly complex, of processes that constitute human organization, it still remains relevant to (re) think how communication, as a field, allows us to understand the current context. Without falling into the traps of "novelty" and change, and without ignoring the contextual new contingencies, developing perspectives invite us to reconsider the non-human et materiality in communication studies. Consequently, to date, we may ask where are the communication sciences.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".