Allmänheten som intuitiv magkänsla : En kvalitativ intervjustudie om Region Stockholms kommunikation med allmänheten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the complexities of public sector communication in Region Stockholm, focusing on the reasons for the communicative decisions made to reach the public. Through qualitative interviews with communication professionals in the organisation, the study investigates the conditions they face, how they conceptualise their audiences (the public), and how this affects their communicative decisions, as well as what the consequences are following these communicative decisions. The study utilises a theoretical framework drawn from the concepts of the Montreal School’s perspective on the communicative constitution of organisation (CCO) and strategic communication, both through the theoretical lens of actor-network theory (ANT). Furthermore, these perspectives are combined with the concept of imagined audience. This study identifies several conditions that influence both communication professionals’ communicative choices and their conceptualisation of the public. These include organisational structure, economic resources and digital affordances. This in turn shapes a dual perception of the public; as a homogeneous majority public conceptualised in relation to the organisation, possessing attributes such as Swedish-speaking and digital literacy, as well as diverse minority publics requiring tailored communication strategies outside ordinary day-to-day communication activities. Due to limited economic and structural resources, the organisation’s communication professionals tend to prioritise known groups (the general and homogeneous public) leading to the exclusion of the less familiar publics, which can be seen as problematic from a democratic perspective. This study contributes to the understanding of public sector communication through a novel perspective, highlighting the need to understand communication professionals’ perceptions of the public and the conditions in which they operate, with an emphasis on the democratic implications of inclusion and exclusion that follow.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".