Analyse de statistiques historiques sur le lectorat du quotidien québécois Le Devoir de 1910 à 2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le quotidien montréalais Le Devoir, fondé en 1910 comme un journal indépendant, nationaliste et catholique, a joué un rôle important dans l’évolution de la société québécoise. Selon plusieurs, il fut surtout lu par l’élite sociale et économique du Canada français, puis du Québec. Nous analysons ici l’importance chiffrée du lectorat du Devoir et certaines de ses caractéristiques en nous basant sur les données de tirage de ce quotidien et d’autres journaux. Nous regardons aussi la distribution géographique du journal ainsi que les résultats de certaines enquêtes auprès de ses lecteurs et de l’élite canadienne-française. L’analyse révèle que Le Devoir représente une part relativement stable du tirage des grands journaux en français à Montréal, mais que son lectorat hors du Québec a fortement diminué avec le temps. Son lectorat comporte bien une composante de l’élite québécoise, mais aussi d’autres classes de la société.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".