MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414153945 · doi:10.14428/rcompro.vi15.77643

Agencement et transformation numérique des pratiques d’engagement en situation de crise : le cas du Gouvernement ouvert du Canada

2025· article· fr· W4414153945 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ivan E. Ivanov, William Durbau, Benoît Cordelier Ithurbide

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Communication & professionnalisation · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)EthnographyLegislationDiversity (politics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’intéresse à l’agencement des pratiques d’engagement au sein du Gouvernement ouvert du Canada dans la foulée des transformations numériques pendant la pandémie de Covid-19. Notre recherche, qui s’inscrit dans l’approche fondée sur les pratiques et la communication constitutive des organisations, suit les étapes de l’analyse thématique et se penche sur les discours de cinq gestionnaires recueillis lors de treize réunions tenues en ligne suite à la directive du télétravail. Nos analyses montrent que la transformation numérique des pratiques d’engagement est un processus d’agencement qui va au-delà de l’intégration d’outils et de technologies numériques. La transformation numérique, influencée par des processus communicationnels oscillant entre savoir et faire, est marquée par l’émergence et le développent de savoirs permettant la facilitation de la communication en contexte numérique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0320.028
Scholarly communication0.0150.004
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Communication & professionnalisationSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207