Le «Printemps érable» : une invitation à repenser les relations publiques politiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La situation politique, mediatique et sociale du « Printemps erable » a demontre une incomprehension de la fonction des relations publiques politiques. Pour le gouvernement Charest et les strateges du Parti liberal du Quebec, les actions communicationnelles servaient vraisemblablement aux interets du parti et de ses allies. Cependant, les theories de l’espace public accordent une preponderance au role social de la communication publique. Questionnant la pratique des relations publiques politiques du PLQ lors de la greve etudiante, ce texte invite a une reflexion sur ses fonctions reelles dans la sphere publique. The political and media events surrounding the student strike in Quebec, referred to as “Printemps erable,” showed a misunderstanding of the political function of public relations’ function. For the Charest government and the Liberal Party’s strategists, public relations only served partisan interests. However, theories of the public sphere give a greater importance to the social role of public relations. Questioning PLQ’s practices of political public relations in regard of the student strike, this article invites the reader to think about political public relations’ actual function in the public sphere.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".