Encodage et décodage des récits historiques. Un cas : la série Le Canada, une histoire populaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fruit de l’investigation du fonds de la division documentaire de la CBC et du fonds Ramsay Cook, cet article étudie la circulation des récits historiques dans la société canadienne à travers l’analyse de la production de la série Le Canada, une histoire populaire (encodage du récit), de la dynamique radio-canadienne entre journalistes et historiens, et du décodage du récit de la série par les téléspectateurs qui ont envoyé des courriels à la CBC. Cette étude montre que, malgré l’articulation de récits minoritaires régionaux, culturels et professionnels, les récits du nation-building canadien et du pluralisme s’imposent à cause de la force persuasive des acteurs sociaux qui les portent et surtout parce qu’ils font davantage consonance avec l’imaginaire social des Canadiens, qu’ils soient producteurs de ce nouveau récit télévisuel ou téléspectateurs. This article, based on the investigation of the CBC documentary archives and of the fond Ramsay Cook , examines the circulation of historical narratives within Canadian society through the analysis of the context of production of the TV series Canada: A People’s History – what we call ‘narrative encoding’ –, the study of the dynamics between CBC’s journalists and historians, and the decoding of this ‘encoded’ historical narrative by TV viewers who sent their e-mails to the CBC. Despite the very presence of counter narratives within the production and reception contexts, may it be regional, cultural or professional, pluralism and ‘nation-building’ master narratives remain hegemonic because of the persuasive force of social actors who strongly support their diffusion, and especially because these narratives are closely related to the social imaginary of most Canadians, either producers of this historical narrative made for the television age or viewers.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".