Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les mass média prennent une part de plus en plus grande dans la production et la diffusion des œuvres culturelles et de l'information dans notre société. Les ressources financières qui supportent ces média deviennent alors, pour une part de plus en plus importante, les ressources même de la culture. Dans notre système actuel de diffusion, les média vivent d'abord et avant tout de publicité. Certes ils ne vivent pas uniquement de publicité : en radio et en télévision nous avons instauré un système où l'État intervient dans le financement des stations ; dans les journaux, le public lecteur fournit directement à peu près 35% des recettes brutes du médium qu'il achète. Il n'en demeure pas moins que ce sont les commanditaires qui financent la part la plus importante de nos média, au point que sans eux l'existence même de ces derniers serait compromise. Ce sont ces ressources publicitaires qui font l'objet de notre analyse. Nous essayerons de voir quelle est la part faite aux principaux média francophones et anglophones du Canada.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".