Premisses, stereotypes et lieux communs clans un discours de simplification : le cas de l' emission Deux psy a l'ecoute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le discours épidictique est omniprésent dans notre société hypermédiatisée, centrée sur la glorification de l'individu. Cette recherche avait pour but de voir à l'œuvre les liens entre l'efficacité du discours épidictique et le recours au savoir partagé comme stratégie persuasive. Nous nous sommes penchées à cet effet sur une émission de consultation psychologique radiophonique très populaire au Québec, Deux psys à l'écoute, pour y examiner le rôle des pré-misses, stéréotypes et lieux communs. Notre hypothèse était que pour créer apparence de discours sensé, l'animateur n'a d'autre choix que de rendre accessible son discours en référant au savoir partagé, à la morale commune, puisque le discours scientifique n'ouvrirait pas sur des sanctions rapides et irrévocables, comme c'est le cas ainsi que le but visé dans l'émission.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".