L’argumentation politique conflictuelle : le cas du débat sur la question nationale au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une analyse est menée des argumentations souverainiste et fédéraliste sur la question nationale québécoise qui cherche à illustrer les insuffisances de la conception normative de l’argumentation de l’approche pragma-dialectique de Eemeren et Grotendorst. Cette analyse identifie d’abord les triades argumentatives souverainiste (un raisonnement déductif du nationalisme, un argument de responsabilité et un argument de nécessité) et fédéraliste (un raisonnement analogique du supranationalisme, un argument de mérite et un argument d’effet néfaste). Elle fait voir ensuite que ces arguments sont en opposition telle qu’ils ne situent pas dans un cadre d’échange et de coopération mais sont au contraire dans un rapport de confrontation qui fait des protagonistes non pas des partenaires mais des adversaires. À partir de cet exemple, est proposée une conception axiologiquement neutre de l’argumentation.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".