Enquête sur le rapport des journalistes à la démocratie : le rôle de médiateur en question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.Dans ce texte, nous tentons d'évaluer le rôle sociopolitique des journalistes en posant les éléments fondamentaux d'une conceptualisation du rôle des médias en démocratie et en analysant les résultats d'une recherche empirique sur l'engagement des journalistes envers la démocratie menée de l'été 2008 au printemps 2010. Notre étude prend appui sur la dichotomie entre un rôle actif des médias et un rôle instrumental face au système politique, dichotomie que nous faisons porter sur les journalistes. Nous prétendons que les médias et les journalistes jouent le rôle de « médiateurs » dans les sociétés libérales, c'est-à-dire d'agents individuels ou collectifs par qui transitent des messages explicites ou implicites; ces agents ajoutent une couche de sens par diverses méthodes dont la sélection des nouvelles, la hiérarchisation des sujets ou le cadrage de personnes ou d'événements. Abstract.This paper aims to assess the sociopolitical role of journalists through a conceptual approach linking media and democracy and through an analysis of the data resulting from an investigation of journalists' commitment to democracy that was conducted from the summer of 2008 to the spring of 2010. Our study is founded on the dichotomy between an active role for the media and an instrumental one in the face of the political system, and this dichotomy is applied to journalists. We believe that the media and journalists function as “mediators” in liberal societies, that is, as individual or collective agents through whom explicit or implicit messages pass; these agents add a layer of signification by diverse methods, among which are the selection of news, the categorization of issues or the framing of individuals or events.
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 | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".