Prolégomènes à l’étude d’une source documentaire : le traitement du théâtre dans les hebdomadaires montréalais de la Belle Époque
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’histoire des spectacles se construit souvent à partir des discours de presse. D’où la nécessité de prendre en compte la spécificité des discours sur le théâtre que l’on retrouve dans les journaux. Entre autres, la notion de genre journalistique s’avère utile pour s’assurer que l’analyse saisit ces documents dans leurs multiples dimensions. Des exemples tirés de la presse hebdomadaire montréalaise de 1898 à 1914 illustrent l’intérêt de ce type d’analyse. Montréal connaît durant cette période un bouillonnement culturel qui se reflète tant dans les salles de spectacles que dans les journaux de langue française. Les hebdomadaires, en particulier, accordent au théâtre beaucoup d’espace et multiplient les articles qui lui sont consacrés. En visant une meilleure compréhension des discours sur le théâtre, des publicités aux critiques les plus fouillées, ce type d’analyse jette un éclairage inédit sur les relations complexes que tissent presse et théâtre au fil du temps.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".