Revealing and questioning the selection and association of constitutive communication events through narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The analysis of communication events via an interactionist approach particularly developed by the Montreal School highlights several communicational modalities that constitute the organization (Cooren, 2010; Robichaud & Benoit-Barné, 2010;Vásquez, Schoeneborn, & Sergi, 2015) Methodologically, these studies cut their empirical material into different communication events in order to highlight the recursion of the modalities identified and discussed. This systematic identification of patterns has undeniably brought conceptual results. While the majority of this work is based on ethnographic fieldwork allowing researchers to capture the constitutive process of the organization, this analytic cutting tends to dislocate the communication events from the constitutive process itself. The editorial format of scientific articles also tends to reinforce this phenomenon. Despite a detailed context that often precedes the analysis of the data, the selection and dislocation are often reinforced by editorial constraints forcing the researcher to propose illustrative vignettes -or the most representative one- of the phenomenon identified and analyzed. The current lack of discussion about the selection and dislocation of communication events poses, however, several problems. First, the cumulative effects of modalities (e.g., presentification, scripts, dislocation) are rarely questioned by the researcher during a longitudinal ethnography. Hence, in this paper, we propose to question narratives of researchers and of actors of the observed organization as hermeneutics of selected and associated constitutive communication events.
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 | 0.037 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".