MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909943063 · doi:10.17118/11143/14494

40 ans après, qu’en est-il de la loi 101 ? Représentations et discours conflictuels dans la presse québécoise

2018· article· fr· W2909943063 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCircula · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S'il est indniable que la Charte de la langue franaise (loi 101) a jou un rle fondamental dans l'histoire du Qubec, elle fait encore aujourd'hui l'objet de nombreuses controverses. Entre en vigueur en aot 1977, la loi 101 a rcemment ft ses 40 ans, ce qui n'est pas pass sous silence dans les mdias. Cet article porte sur les reprsentations qui entourent la loi 101 et qui ont t vhicules l'occasion de cet anniversaire dans la presse crite qubcoise francophone et anglophone. L'analyse de ce corpus, provenant de mdias qui s'adressent des communauts linguistiques diffrentes et des lecteurs partageant des points de vue politiques divergents, permettra de faire ressortir non seulement les diffrents regards ports sur la lgislation linguistique qubcoise l'heure actuelle, mais galement la faon dont ces points de vue antagonistes sont hirarchiss les uns par rapport aux autres.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it