Réceptions de campagnes de communication publiques sur le risque volcanique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les campagnes de communication publiques sur les risques volcaniques parviennent-elles à sensibiliser les habitants concernés ? Ces derniers connaissent-ils, à la suite de ces campagnes, les comportements à adopter en cas d’éruption ? À partir d’une enquête empirique, cette recherche étudie la réception et l’interprétation de campagnes de sensibilisation aux risques du volcan Misti par la population d’Arequipa. Elle a pour but d’alimenter les politiques de réduction des risques en contribuant à évaluer l’impact des arguments, messages et images utilisés au cours de telles campagnes publiques. Elle vise également à estimer le degré de mémorisation et de connaissance des consignes de préparation données par les autorités et des facteurs qui expliquent qu’une partie des habitants prennent plus en compte ces informations que d’autres (quartier, âge, genre, expérience préalable du risque).
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; 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".