L’animation culturelle en mutation : une analyse diachronique des discours (2010-2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’animation culturelle a connu de profondes transformations au cours des 15 dernières années. Ce dynamisme, nourri par l’essor des technologies de communication, l’évolution des publics et la redéfinition du rôle des politiques publiques, a suscité un foisonnement de pratiques et de réflexions théoriques. Une analyse diachronique de ces mutations, en s’appuyant sur les numéros parus dans la Revue, vous est proposée afin d’explorer l’évolution et les variations de ce contenu discursif autour de quatre axes : les nouveaux paradigmes découlant de l’ère numérique, la participation citoyenne, les enjeux territoriaux et le changement social. Loin d’être une simple technique de divertissement, l’animation culturelle repose sur une posture critique et engagée, au service de l’épanouissement des individus et des collectivités. C’est à cette condition qu’elle pourra contribuer à la construction d’un avenir plus juste et démocratique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".