La construction discursive du concept de la souveraineté dans les médias canadiens lors du référendum de 1995*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but général de cet article consiste à décrire et à analyser les mécanismes à l’oeuvre dans la formation discursive du discours référendaire des médias canadiens en 1995. Plus particulièrement, il s’agit d’étudier les différences discursives des deux groupes linguistiques canadiens dans les quotidiens eu égard à l’utilisation du mot «souveraineté». Son étiquetage fonctionnel et sa quantification ont permis d’en mieux comprendre le statut et l’importance discursive dans le débat référendaire. La méthodologie se fonde sur l’approche de l’ACD (Analyse Critique du Discours), telle que pratiquée par Fairclough 2001, Fowler et coll. 1979, Kress et Hodge 1979, et la grammaire fonctionnelle de Halliday.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".