MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166796755

Que lisent les jeunes filles? Une analyse thématique de la « presse ados » au Québec

2003· article· fr· W2166796755 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericanae (AECID Library) · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caron, Caroline (2003) « Que lisent les jeunes filles?Une analyse thématique de la « presse ados » au Québec », Pratiques psychologiques, no 3, p. 49-61.-2 -RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente une partie des résultats produits par une analyse de contenu de la presse féminine pour adolescentes produite et distribuée au Québec.Elle avait pour but d'interroger la représentation de la féminité et des rapports entre les femmes et les hommes véhiculée dans ces publications.L'hypothèse selon laquelle ce contenu est conservateur plutôt qu'égalitaire est validée et permet de considérer ce média comme un agent de socialisation traditionnelle.La répartition des articles (N=253) selon le thème révèle que près des deux tiers (64,8 %) du contenu produit par les équipes rédactionnelles traitent de la beauté, de la mode, des garçons, des relations hétérosexuelles et des vedettes masculines.Plus du tiers (35,2 %) touche au développement personnel et social, mais la lecture attentive révèle qu'ils négligent la dimension sociale de l'identité, au profit d'une insistance marquée pour la dimension personnelle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericanae (AECID Library)Same topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207