MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039301097 · doi:10.3138/ijcs.2014.009

The Reasonable Accommodations Crisis in Quebec: Racializing Rhetorical Devices in Media and Social Discourse

2014· article· en· W2039301097 on OpenAlex
Maryse Potvin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionExaggerationSocial mediaEthnic groupSociologyMedia studiesCommissionRhetorical deviceFocus (optics)Political sciencePublic relationsPsychologyLinguisticsLawPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article summarizes the major findings from a research report written for the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on how the media handle reasonable accommodations and opinions on this issue. The focus is on two types of social discourse: event-based handling by the media and the opinions expressed by editorialists, columnists, intellectuals, and readers in Quebec’s print media. The analysis revealed devices used in the media and incidents of media exaggeration, as well as populist and racializing rhetorical devices in many journalists’ and readers’ opinions. This social discourse on the reasonable accommodations crisis shed light on ethnic relations, on how various groups in Quebec perceive one another, and on the sensitivity associated with francophones’ recent ascension to majority status.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it