La citoyenneté canadienne dans la presse écrite anglo-canadienne et franco-québécoise : convergence ou divergence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.La publication d'un nouveau guide d'étude destiné aux immigrants qui souhaitent acquérir la citoyenneté canadienne en 2009 constitue la première réforme de cet ouvrage depuis sa parution en 1995. Notre analyse se penche sur les réactions dans la presse écrite anglo-canadienne et franco-québécoise entourant cette nouvelle publication. Contrairement au postulat d'un « choc des identités » au Canada, nos résultats démontrent qu'une alliance implicite s'est forgée entre « les deux solitudes» canadiennes dans leur compréhension de la citoyenneté, alors qu'est reconnue, dans les deux groupes de quotidiens, l'importance de protéger les « acquis » de la société canadienne contre les croyances et les pratiques de l'« Autre » non-civilisé. Toutefois, la prudence est de mise: la convergence des représentations médiatiques de la citoyenneté canadienne, renvoie-t-elle vraiment à une identité collective partagée au Québec et au Canada? Abstract.The release of a new study guide for immigrants aiming to become Canadian citizens in 2009 was the first major reform of this document since its inception in 1995. This paper examines the coverage of the Anglo-Canadian and Franco-Québécois press surrounding the new citizenship guide. Rather than supporting the widely accepted thesis that Canada is marked by a « collision of identities », our study suggests the emergence of an implicit alliance between the two Canadian “solitudes” with respect to their understanding of citizenship. In particular, the two groups of newspapers agree upon the necessity to protect « acquired gains » of Canadian society against the beliefs and practices of an uncivilized « Other ». Nevertheless, we should not jump to conclusions: does the convergence of media representations of Canadian citizenship really reflect the emergence of a shared collective identity in Quebec and Canada?
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".