Audiovisuel et commentaires en ligne : nouveau champ, nouveaux paradigmes ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le domaine d’étude des commentaires en ligne d’objets audiovisuels eux-mêmes en ligne (nativement ou non), se situe à la croisée de plusieurs autres. Les commentaires en ligne d’objets audiovisuels sont un phénomène communicationnel majeur de la dernière décennie. Ce phénomène est nodal en sciences de l’information et de la communication, car il combine à la fois problématiques technologiques et sociales, usages particuliers et faits collectifs, expériences humaines et innovations organisationnelles. En effet, commenter, partager, participer, collaborer, faire, être, exister se révèlent être des variations, jouées par les sujets agissant au grand jour d’un réseau, d’une même partition énonciative, « locutive » et locutoire. Dire est toujours faire, mais voir est aussi dire et montrer, également dire que l’on voit, dire que l’on montre, montrer que l’on dit, voir que l’on dit que l’on montre… bref, une sémiose infinie et nécessairement collective qui s’expose grâce, notamment, aux commentaires en lignes des objets audiovisuels. C’est cette exposition que les contributrices et contributeurs de ce numéro analysent à partir de différents cas selon une variété de méthodes. The field of study of online comments of audiovisual objects, themselves online (natively or not), is at the crossroads of several others. Online commenting of audiovisual objects is a major communicational phenomenon of the last decade. This phenomenon is nodal in Information and Communication sciences, as it combines binary issues: technological and social, particular uses and collective events, human experiences and organizational innovations. Indeed, commenting, sharing, participating, collaborating, doing, being, existing are all variations played out by subjects acting in the light of a complex network. To say is always to do, but to see is also to say and to show, also to say that we see, to say that we show, to show that we say, to see that we say that we show... in short, an infinite and necessarily collective semiosis ensued from the network exposed by the online comments of audiovisual objects. These phenomena are analysed from different cases using a variety of methods by the contributors of this issue.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".