La terminologie sur les professionnels de la communication militaire : genèse et contextualisation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la foulée de l’actualité sur le conflit Russie-Ukraine qui relance le débat sur le rôle de l’information en temps de guerre, cet article retrace l’évolution de la terminologie qui désigne les professionnels de la communication militaire. À travers une approche diachronique dans le contexte anglo-saxon (États-Unis, Canada et Royaume-Uni), l’auteur révèle les usages terminologiques et leurs métamorphoses à partir de la Grande Guerre. L’article revient sur différentes phases de l’institutionnalisation et de la professionnalisation des « officiers de communication » militaires et offre une réflexion critique sur une terminologie fondée à la fois sur un discours de distanciation avec la propagande et sur un discours de légitimation d’un champ professionnel concurrent au journalisme et qui a acquis une place importante dans la communication militaire institutionnelle et opérationnelle.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".