Reprise, reformulation et réappropriation : les traces de discours antérieurs dans les slogans écrits du printemps érable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 2012, le Québec a connu la plus importante grève étudiante de son histoire. Parmi la production discursive découlant de ce vaste mouvement de contestation, les slogans entendus ou vus lors des manifestations ont suscité l’intérêt dans l’espace public. C’est à cet objet, et plus particulièrement au slogan revendicateur sous sa forme scripturale, que cet article est consacré. Nous nous intéressons plus spécifiquement à la façon dont les manifestants ont recours au discours d’autrui pour construire leurs propres énoncés revendicateurs. Nous inscrivant dans une approche sociodiscursive de l’analyse de la circulation des discours, nous nous proposons d’étudier la reprise, la réinterprétation et la remise en discours des propos d’autrui dans les slogans scripturaux du printemps érable afin de faire ressortir la manière dont les individus réactualisent et remettent en circulation des discours du passé – proche ou lointain – pour appuyer leur point de vue.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".