L’organisation comme effet de médiation : Redéfinir le lien entre organisation et communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment expliquer un phénomène aussi général et aussi central que l’organisation sociale ? Telle est la question abordée dans cet article. Partant de l’analyse de l’énonciation, et plus généralement de la communication, celui-ci tente de démontrer la nature profondément organisante de la communication. La théorie des actes de langage (Austin, Searle et Vanderveken) est mobilisée et reformulée selon un nouveau modèle analytique basé sur le concept de « modalité » emprunté à la théorie greimassienne et la théorie de la sémantique des modalités (Palmer, Bybee et Fleischman). Par cette analyse, les concepts d’« interobjectivité » et de « médiation », proposés par Latour comme étant les fondements du collectif, sont traduits et étendus à toute activité énonciative. Ce parallèle nous permet de présenter la communication comme une activité de médiation qui consiste à distribuer illocutoirement et fixer perlocutoirement des habilitations et des contraintes qui sont à la base de toute structure organisationnelle.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".