Les chambres d’écho sont-elles morales? Étude croisée de disputes en ligne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’avènement des « démocraties plurielles » et l’éclatement des sphères communicationnelles ont conduit à un pluralisme des publics et des dispositifs. Cependant, la transformation de notre cadre sociotechnique ne nous rapproche pas davantage de l’idéal habermassien d’un espace public. Cet article propose d’aborder le concept de « chambre d’écho » sous un angle moral, par une double entrée théorique et empirique : d’abord, comme un concept flottant aux conséquences ambiguës et qui témoigne d’une inquiétude académique ; ensuite, comme un outil de diagnostic utile à la caractérisation et la compréhension de sphères conflictuelles. Sur la base de ces réflexions théoriques et par l’exploration empirique de deux espaces antagonistes en ligne (masculiniste et féministe contre-masculiniste), nous proposons d’aborder la morale des chambres d’écho à partir d’une tripartition : morale du pouvoir (cadre social et technique), morale du pluralisme (homophilie) et morale interactionniste (échanges interpersonnels).
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".