La question de la liberté d'expression dans les démêlés judiciaires et les revers administratifs de CHOI-FM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Cet article porte sur l'utilisation du concept de “ liberté d'expression ” par une station de radio de Québec, CHOI-FM, dans ses démêlés avec le CRTC et dans le procès de Sophie Chiasson contre la station en Cour supérieure du Québec. Bien que les promoteurs de CHOI-FM aient fait de la liberté d'expression leur argument principal en 2004 et 2005, nous défendons l'hypothèse que cet argument était purement instrumental. Cependant, le concept de liberté d'expression mérite d'être analysé, car il a un pouvoir d'évocation peu commun en démocratie; il renvoie en effet à la nécessaire effervescence du débat public et à l'individualisme. D'autre part, la liberté d'expression a aussi été associée au populisme et au discours illicite, éléments auxquels elle confère un vernis de respectabilité. Abstract. This paper deals with the use of the concept of freedom of expression by a Quebec City radio station, CHOI-FM, in its dispute with the CRTC and in the court case of Sophie Chiasson before the Quebec Cour supérieure. Although freedom of expression is the main argument used by CHOI-FM in 2004 and 2005, our hypothesis is that this argument is mainly instrumental. Nevertheless, freedom of expression must be analyzed because it is a major symbol of democracy; it is linked with lively public debate and individualism. In this case, freedom of expression is also used in an attempt to lend respectability to populism and illicit discourse.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".