Quand les événements scientifiques font l’objet de désinformation : le cas de la controverse télévisée des manipulations génétiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contexte : Cet article examine la problématique de la désinformation scientifique au prisme des biais cognitifs qui parcourent l’exercice d’attribution de sens à l’événement inédit que représente l’émergence des manipulations génétiques dans les années 70. Analyse : Croisant théorie phénoménologique de l’événement, problème public, cadre et biais cognitifs, l’étude explore 48 documents télévisuels des chaînes françaises La Une, Antenne 2 et FR3 sur la période 1962-1990. Conclusions et implications : Grâce à la technique de l’analyse du discours, l’étude montre que les biais de confirmation, de représentativité, de disponibilité et d’ancrage sont entre autres des écueils discursifs au cœur de la constitution du problème des manipulations génétiques.
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 | 0.021 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".