Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de la comparaison de trois journaux produits à Montréal, l’un journal militant « non-aligné », l’autre, revue alternative et le troisième, journal communautaire de quartier, l’auteur s’interroge sur le statut du discours prôné par chacun de ces médias écrits. Que révèlent-ils du rapport qu’ils établissent à leurs lecteurs ? Écrire pour le mouvement syndical et populaire, l’alternative douce et subversive, ou la participation des citoyens, n’est-ce pas là produire autant des mensonges que des vérités ? Créer un message, c’est d’abord se créer soi-même, affirmer sa propre existence avant celle de la situation que l’on décrit. Et dans ce sens, tout message est mensonge. Mais ces mensonges sont aussi des résistances aux mensonges des autres qui nient les vérités que l’on vit. Refuser le silence, chercher à parler de ses propres réalités, n’est-ce pas refuser d’être complices des mensonges du pouvoir des autres, essayer de se sentir honnêtes ?
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".