La quête d’influence entre délibération, reconnaissance et valorisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les recherches en sciences sociales sur l’épreuve de la brûlure grave ont mis en évidence les enjeux de la visibilité des blessés cutanés dans l’espace public. Soumises aux questions que soulève l’exposition de soi, les personnes touchées tentent de contrôler leur apparence publique ou d’intervenir sur les modes de perception publique de la brûlure. En s’appuyant sur des entretiens semi-directifs ainsi que sur l’étude d’un corpus médiatique (contenus audiovisuels, réseaux sociaux), différentes modalités d’exposition publique de l’épreuve de la brûlure grave sont mises en évidence. Accentuée par le net, la pluralité des modes d’exposition amène à dégager une typologie des postures engagées (épistémique, reconnaissance, valorisation) ainsi que des tensions pragmatiques et normatives émergeant entre ces dernières. Le poids accru du numérique fait prévaloir la posture de valorisation par rapport aux deux autres postures, au détriment de l’apprentissage public qui est au principe de la quête de visibilité des grand·e·s brulé·e·s.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".