Perspectives en communication - Première partie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La communication en tant que domaine d’étude n’a de cesse de questionner ses racines. Elle nous renvoie sans cesse à la multitude des disciplines qu’elle a adaptées, intégrées et assimilées pour développer de nouvelles démarches. Elle se laisse influencer et partage non seulement les objets de ces différentes disciplines, mais également leurs concepts et leurs méthodes. Elle cherche aussi à apporter un regard propre, communicationnel. Cet adjectif ouvre et signifie une volonté de forger une ou des perspectives nouvelles. La communication a donc à réfléchir à son positionnement par rapport à d’autres domaines ou disciplines, mais également par rapport à l’objet qu’elle étudie. Au cœur de ce dossier spécial se retrouve l’articulation de ces deux pistes de réflexion. Communication as a field of study is constantly requestioning its roots. Thus, it refers us back to the multitude of disciplines that it has adapted, integrated and assimilated in order to develop new approaches. It is influenced as well as it shares the objects, concepts and methods of these disciplines. Communication also seeks to provide a vision of its own, that is "communicative". This adjective opens and points to a willingness to form new perspectives. Therefore, communication has to consider its position in relation to other fields or disciplines, but also in relation to its own subject of studies. It is the articulation of these two lines of thought that reflects in this special 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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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".