Élites et opinions : la presse écrite comme forum lors du référendum québécois de 1995
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche s'interesse aux journalistes de la presse ecrite quotidienne quebecoise ayant couvert le referendum sur la souverainete du Quebec en 1995. Le Quebec est un terrain d'observation interessant en raison des deux communautes linguistiques qui le composent et de ce contexte particulier lie a la question nationale. Le probleme pose est, en effet, celui de la cohabitation de l'information avec les revendications identitaires, un journalisme qui serait militant ou non militant . Il est question de la nature du professionnalisme des journalistes quebecois. A l'aide d'une grille d'analyse construite autour de cette notion, nous observons que la structure professionnelle des journalistes dans une societe a des consequences significatives sur le contenu de l'information que la presse diffuse. Cette recherche apporte une lumiere nouvelle a la comprehension du traitement de l'information referendaire opere en 1995 et des pistes de reflexion en matiere de comparatisme politique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".