Le rôle de la presse dans la discussion de la réforme de l’orthographe française
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rsume : Cet article a l'objectif d'tudier les ractions de deux quotidiens franais -Le Monde et Le Figaro - la dernire rforme de l'orthographe franaise propose en 1990. Les questions qui se posent sont multiples : Quelle a t la visibilit de cette rforme au sein de cette presse crite ? Quelles en ont t les modalits linguistiques et discursives ? Quels ont t les acteurs du discours port sur les rectifications ? Cette presse a-t-elle port le poids de la question dlicate de l'ide d'une rforme de l'orthographe en gnral ou s'est-elle concentre plus prcisment sur les changements proposs en 1990 ? Sur le plan mthodologique, une approche chronologique a t choisie afin de respecter la structure temporelle du dbat et de pouvoir en apprhender l'volution. Il s'agit de trois priodes reprsentatives pendant lesquelles une discussion sur cette rforme eut lieu en France, savoir 1990France, savoir , 2009France, savoir et 2016. .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".