Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les chroniqueurs de la presse écrite québécoise jouissent à l’heure actuelle d’une forte popularité, surtout en raison de l’originalité de leur écriture. Compte tenu de leur notoriété publique, nous cherchons à savoir s’ils ont développé une identité professionnelle qui diffère de celle des autres scripteurs en milieu journalistique. Dans cette optique, nous nous intéressons à la perception de certaines traditions textuelles, aussi appelées normes textuelles, aspect que nous traitons à partir d’un corpus d’entretiens semi-dirigés réalisés auprès de douze chroniqueurs qui écrivent pour des quotidiens à tirage élevé. Nous nous proposons d’analyser dans quelle mesure les chroniqueurs considèrent ces normes textuelles comme des constituants de leur identité professionnelle qui devraient régir leurs pratiques. Les résultats montrent que la place qu’accordent les chroniqueurs aux variations individuelles dans ces techniques d’écriture leur permet de se démarquer en tant qu’auteurs. Today, Quebec newspaper columnists are very popular, especially because of the originality of their writing. Given their popularity, the aim of this paper is to analyse if these columnists have developed a professional identity that differs from other writers in the journalistic community. To this end, we focus on the columnists’ perception of certain text traditions, i. e. textual norms. Our analysis bases on a data collection of semi-structured interviews with twelve columnists who write for daily newspapers. We examine the extent to which these columnists consider different textual norms governing their daily writing as components of their professional identity. The results show that the scope these columnists give to individual variation in well-established text traditions allows them to stand out as authors.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".