Varia et Dossier (Communication sociale et publique : prisme ou foyer?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Revue internationale de communication sociale et publique vous propose un numéro double qui comprend quatre articles, une note de recherche et un dossier thématique lancé suite au colloque « Communication sociale et publique : prisme ou foyer? » qui s’est tenu dans le cadre du congrès international de l’ACFAS en mai 2010, et afin de souligner son premier anniversaire. Quatre ans après le colloque « Communication : horizons de pratiques et de recherche » (ACFAS, 2006), et la publication de deux collectifs sous le même intitulé aux Presses de l’Université du Québec, ce colloque se voulait une nouvelle occasion de faire un tour d’horizon des principaux axes de la recherche francophone dans le domaine. For its first anniversary, the Revue internationale de communication sociale et publique proposes a double issue including four articles, a research update, and a case study which was launched by the symposium “Communication sociale et publique: prisme ou foyer?” held in conjunction with the international ACFAS convention in May 2010. This symposium, held four years after the monumental symposium entitled “Communication: horizons de pratiques et de recherche” (ACFAS, 2006) and after the publication of two collections by the same name published by the University of Quebec Press, was a new occasion to create an overview of the principle subjects of French-language research in the field.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".