Une analyse discursive de trois énoncés québécois de politique internationale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un corpus de trois livres blancs en matière de relations internationales a été produit par trois gouvernements québécois différents : l’un en 1985 (Parti québécois), l’autre en 1991 (Parti libéral), enfin le troisième en 2001 (Parti québécois). Fondée sur des statistiques lexicales, et tout en considérant ces documents comme des actes de langage participant à la construction de la réalité des rapports entre les États, une analyse discursive dévoile des nuances, des variations et des constantes dans le comportement des auteurs successifs. Selon des fréquences de vocabulaire sur des thèmes clés, il est apparu que le Québec, comme d’autres États fédérés, non souverains mais autonomes dans leurs champs de compétence, a tendu ces dernières décennies à participer activement à une vie internationale mondialisée et sur un mode qui comporte les caractéristiques d’une véritable politique étrangère.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".