Les marques ont-elles une religion ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les marques composent de longue date avec la religion, à commencer par leurs stratégies de développement sur les marchés étrangers qui les obligent à prendre en compte les prescriptions comme les interdictions des religions majoritaires afin de rendre licite leur offre commerciale auprès des populations. L’intention de ce numéro n’est pas d’apporter une contribution supplémentaire à cette littérature déjà abondante. Il s’agit moins d’interroger ici les logiques d’adaptation de l’offre commerciale que d’engager une réflexion sur la religion qui traverse et travaille les marques de l’intérieur et leurs stratégies de communication. Au croisement de plusieurs disciplines, dont les sciences de l’information et de la communication, la théologie, le marketing, l’anthropologie, ce numéro essaye de cerner, dans les différents niveaux de leurs activités et les plis de la production de sens, la perméabilité des marques aux origines, aux attentes comme aux valeurs religieuses pour apprécier comment cette appropriation influe sur leur gestion. From their development strategies in foreign markets, which compel them to consider the prescriptions and prohibitions, brands have been dealing with religion for a long time to ensure the legality of their commercial offer. This issue aims not to add to the already abundant literature or to question the logic of adaptation of the commercial offer following dominant religions. Rather, it seeks to engage in a reflection on religion that crosses and works on the brands, from the inside and in their communication strategies. At the crossroads of several disciplines, including information and communication sciences, theology, marketing, and anthropology, this issue attempts to identify, in the different levels of their activities and in the shapes that produces meaning, the permeability at the origins of brands, at the expectations, and at the religious values to understand how this appropriation influences management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".