MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311826464 · doi:10.5216/c&i.v10i2.10792

A representação da diversidade cultural do Québec na publicidade francófona televisiva

2010· article· pt· W2311826464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farrah Béroubé

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2010
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesEthnologyPopulationSociologyArtDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans les années 50, les chercheurs ont observé dans les médias de masse une représentation inadéquate de la diversité culturelle aux États-Unis et au Canada. Par exemple, des groupes étaient sousreprésentés dans les médias par rapport à leur nombre dans la population et des représentations perpétuaient des stéréotypes raciaux. Depuis, le «visage» des pays occidentaux ne cesse de se diversifier culturellement. Selon le recensement de 2001, le Canada compte 5,4 millions d’immigrants, soit 18,4% de sa population totale, une réalité palpable dans les grandes villes comme Montréal. Qu’en est-il aujourd’hui de la représentation de la diversité culturelle québécoise dans les médias francophones? Cet article, qui a pour perspective communicationnelle les médias et la diversité culturelle, présentera les résultats d’une analyse de contenu1 réalisée en 2003 sur la représentation de cette diversité québécoisedans la publicité télévisée francophone. Les résultats montrent, entre autres, que les représentations véhiculent des stéréotypes raciaux, qu’il y a sur-représentation de certains groupes, alors que d’autres groupes sont sous-représentés.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207