Un regard critique sur les enjeux de diversité, d’inclusion et de pouvoir dans la pratique des relations publiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent entretien propose un aperçu des idées de Lee Edwards, professeure en communication stratégique et chercheuse en relations publiques à la London School of Economics and Political Science, sur les enjeux de diversité, de pouvoir, d’inégalités et d’inclusivité qui touchent la pratique des communications ainsi que sur les conditions et possibilités de changement. Au cours de cette conversation, nous explorons avec elle les défis auxquels fait face la profession des relations publiques ainsi que les actions nécessaires pour promouvoir un environnement plus équitable et ouvert. Ce faisant, notre objectif est de mieux faire connaître au public francophone ses idées, qui ont marqué ce qui a été identifié comme un « tournant socioculturel » dans l’étude des relations publiques. Les réflexions éclairées de Lee Edwards offrent un regard précieux sur la façon dont les relations publiques peuvent jouer un rôle crucial dans la construction d’une société plus diversifiée, inclusive et juste.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| 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".