Technique de mise en pages, crise économique et journalisme d’opinion : Le Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe de 1920 à 1938
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article, richement illustré, examine l’évolution de la technique de mise en pages du Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe entre 1920 et 1938, en la comparant avec celle d’un journal concurrent, Le Clairon. Excluant l’analyse de contenu des articles, ce texte s’intéresse à la composition et à l’évolution de la une, à l’ordre et à l’emplacement des chroniques des pages intérieures, ainsi qu’aux facteurs ayant mené à leurs transformations. Outre la crise, qui pèse lourdement sur les finances des entreprises de presse, divers développements technologiques peuvent aussi influer sur l’évolution de la mise en page. L’utilisation faite de la photographie dans la composition du Courrier, le fait que celui-ci est un hebdomadaire plutôt qu’un quotidien, et sa vocation comme journal d’opinion laissent toutefois présager que les choix techniques dépendent de plusieurs facteurs qui ne sont pas que technologiques.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".