« Nous sommes l’un des deux peuples fondateurs et nous voulons être traités comme tel » : la référence canadienne-française dans la presse franco-ontarienne (1969-1982)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude de la presse franco-ontarienne entre 1969 et 1982 s’intéresse à la persistance de la référence canadienne-française dans les journaux en Ontario français. L’auteur, qui propose une analyse des principaux hebdomadaires francophones de la province et de l’édition du samedi du Droit, tente de faire ressortir les liens de continuité existant entre l’identité franco-ontarienne et l’identité canadienne-française au lendemain des États généraux du Canada français. Le projet de société en Ontario français, loin d’être « normaliste », s’est largement inspiré d’une certaine interprétation du projet canadien-français. Les journaux citent, notamment, la thèse des deux peuples fondateurs et le droit d’aînesse des Franco-Ontariens dans la province pour justifier l’attribution de nouveaux droits et de nouvelles institutions à la minorité française en Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".