MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909969557 · doi:10.3917/ls.166.0117

Topoï et légitimation des politiques austéritaires. Une étude des éditoriaux de La Presse de 1980 à 2015

2019· article· fr· W2909969557 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathieu Dufour, Audrey Laurin‐Lamothe, Ricardo Peñafiel

Bibliographic record

VenueLangage et société · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalYork UniversityUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’intéresse à la diffusion des topoï d’une vulgate néolibérale, à travers une analyse discursive longitudinale, de 1980 à 2015, des éditoriaux de La Presse , l’un des principaux quotidiens québécois. L’analyse thématique, argumentative, pragmatique et énonciative de ce corpus est menée en dialogue avec les théories économiques impliquées dans les énoncés des éditoriaux. Car, bien que les lieux communs ( topoï ) développés ou mobilisés par La Presse simplifient à l’extrême ces théories, les relations entre ces deux niveaux de circulation sont constitutives des règles de dispersion de l’événement discursif austéritaire. Cette étude montre comment la construction d’un topos anti-déficits dans les années 1980 réfute d’emblée (sans besoin d’argumentation) toute politique impliquant des dépenses publiques. Étudiant comment ce topos s’adapte à différents changements de conjoncture en engendrant et en s’articulant à d’autres topoï austéritaires, l’analyse montre les conditions de possibilité d’une austérité permanente, légitimant entre autres une criminalisation de la grève et une normalisation de lois d’exception, décrétant les conditions de travail des salariés.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangage et sociétéSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207