MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163600731 · doi:10.1017/s0008423908080098

Les styles discursifs des premiers ministres québécois de Jean Lesage à Jean Charest

2008· article· fr· W2163600731 on OpenAlexaffabout
Denis Monière, Cyril Labbé, Dominique Labbé

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)HumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé. La forme, le style du discours des hommes politiques sont révélateurs de leurs personnalités et de leurs stratégies de communication. Pour analyser les styles des premiers ministres québécois, un corpus comprenant 789 discours officiels prononcés de 1960 à 2005 a été soumis à une analyse de stylistique quantitative. Nous avons analysé les catégories grammaticales, le maniement des verbes et des noms, la longueur et la structure des phrases. Cette comparaison statistique montre des différences significatives entre les premiers ministres et révèle également la stratégie de communication privilégiée par chacun d'eux. Abstract. The style of politician speeches reveals their personalities and their communication strategies. In order to analyse the style of Quebec prime ministers, from 1960 to 2005, a corpus of 789 speeches have been built up and a quantitative stylistic analysis has been applied to it. The main indicators used are the grammatical categories, especially the verbs and pronouns, the length and the structure of the sentences. This statistical comparison shows some important differences between the styles of the prime ministers and between the communication strategies they have followed.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207