Enjeux de « territoire » dans la quête de visibilité : stratégies d’alliance des petits ateliers d’édition privés en Chine contemporaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose d’examiner les stratégies mises en oeuvre par les petits ateliers d’édition privés pour gagner en visibilité dans l’espace éditorial chinois. Pris en étau entre les maisons d’édition publiques, seules habilitées à obtenir des ISBN auprès des autorités chinoises, et les grandes entreprises privées dotées de capitaux importants, ces ateliers doivent se distinguer pour assurer leur survie et leur développement. En mobilisant la notion de « territoire » développée par Andrew Abbott dans la sociologie des professions, l’article identifie d’abord trois groupes d’alliés essentiels – les pairs, les libraires indépendants et les jeunes universitaires –, avant d’analyser la manière dont ces alliances se concrétisent à travers différents supports physiques et numériques, tels que les livres, les librairies ou la plateforme Douban. Toutefois, le territoire conquis reste fragile, confronté à la double contrainte de la mainmise de l’État et de la logique capitaliste des grandes entreprises.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".