Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette note de recherche présente une synthèse de la littérature autour du thème émergent de la communication climatique. Devant la nécessité de mettre en avant une communication qui saura convaincre les populations à s’adapter aux bouleversements climatiques, notamment afin d’en atténuer les effets, se multiplient ainsi les écrits sur la manière de rendre ces communications efficaces. Partant d’une approche transdisciplinaire puisant autant à la psychologie sociale qu’à la linguistique, à la sémiotique et à la communication, cette synthèse met en exergue différentes dynamiques liées aux changements de comportement liés à l’urgence climatique ainsi qu’une série de bonnes pratiques communicationnelles à privilégier. L’importance d’adapter le message aux différents publics, celle de placer l’humain au cœur des communications, notamment en racontant des histoires, et celle de faire un usage stratégique des médias sociaux ressortent comme des éléments-clés pour déployer une communication qui porte.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.016 |
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".