« André Arthur en ondes, la construction d'un personnage dominant », In Fréquences limites, la radio de confrontation au Québec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radio extreme, radio de provocation, radio d'opinion, radio a scandale, radio poubelle, radio vulgarite...Les appellations se multiplient mais il s'agit d'un seul genre, d'un meme esprit. La radio de confrontation definit un format radiophonique precis qui repose sur la diffusion d'opinions personnelles fabriquees de propos choquants, denigrants, meprisants et souvent obscenes. Pour bien fonctionner, trois ingredients sont requis: un animateur-vedette passe maitre dans l'art de l'auto-valorisation et du denigrement, un auditoire qui entretient une relation de complicite avec lui, et des tiers a (faire) hair. Ce format ne peut donc pas exister sans la competence rhetorique, stylistique, interactionnelle des animateurs. Les textes de cet ouvrage mettent la radio de confrontation sous la loupe de specialistes du langage. La structure, la forme, le contenu et la logique des propos des animateurs Andre Arthur, Jean-Francois Fillion et Pierre Mailloux ont ete analyses methodiquement et les auteurs concluent que le discours des rois de la radio ont une portee suffisamment devastatrice pour qu'on y prenne garde: sous couvert de divertissement, ils ont la meme facture que les discours populistes, racistes, sexistes, haineux.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".