Bibliographic record
Abstract

 
 FR. Le journal télévisé (JT) est constitué d’un assemblage de voix : voix du réseau de télévision responsable du JT ; voix du présentateur et des reporters qui se succèdent à l’écran ; voix des protagonistes et des interprètes des événements. Cette polyphonie, élaborée et orchestrée par les artisans du JT, est un révélateur du type de rapport que ceux-ci cherchent à établir avec le monde dont ils sont censés rendre compte et avec le public qu’ils sont censés informer. Une analyse en diachronie des voix présentes dans les JT diffusés au Québec depuis les années 1960 permet d’observer certains changements significatifs. Le JT montre à l’écran deux catégories de locuteurs : des journalistes (présentateurs, reporters, chroniqueurs), qui sont de loin les plus loquaces (80% du temps de parole) et des acteurs de l’actualité (protagonistes, témoins et interprètes des événements). Au début de la période, le monde que donne à voir le JT est surtout celui des institutions soumises au principe de publicité (les parlements, les assemblées publiques, les tribunaux et les conférences de presse convoquées par les grandes institutions) dans lesquelles domine une parole dite « officielle ». Ces voix institutionnelles ont cédé de plus en plus de place à des locuteurs individuels, en l’occurrence des experts et des « gens ordinaires », qui, en parlant, n’engagent qu’eux-mêmes. Avant 2000, l’actualité que décrit le JT est d’abord et avant tout l’affaire des acteurs politiques et des dirigeants de l’administration publique ; après 2000, l’actualité du JT est surtout l’affaire d’individus qui, pour diverses raisons, sont mis en scène dans le bilan de l’actualité. Cette montée en puissance du discours individuel peut s’expliquer par des facteurs techniques (qui ont rendu la chose matériellement faisable), des facteurs professionnels et organisationnels (qui ont fait en sorte que la valorisation de la parole individuelle est apparue aux yeux des artisans du JT comme une stratégie avantageuse, commercialement et professionnellement) et des facteurs socio-culturels (qui ont rendu cette publicisation de la parole individuelle acceptable, même souhaitable aux yeux des téléspectateurs).
 
 ***
 
 EN. Televised news bulletins are composed of a chorus of voices: the television network responsible for the news broadcast; the news anchor and reporters who follow one after the other on the screen; and the protagonists and interpreters of the events. This polyphony, developed and orchestrated by TV news maestros, exemplifies the type of relationship they seek to establish with the world they are supposed to report on and with the public they are supposed to inform. A diachronic analysis of televised news broadcasts in Quebec since the 1960s reveals significant change. Two categories of speakers dominate the screen: journalists (presenters, reporters, columnists), by far the most prevalent (80% of speaking time), and news actors (protagonists, witnesses and event interpreters). At first, news mainly portrayed the world of institutions subject to needs of publicity (parliaments, public assemblies, courts and press conferences convened by major institutions), and was dominated by so-called “official” discourse. These once-dominant institutional voices have increasingly given way to individual speakers, in this case experts and “ordinary people,” whose discourses only commits the speaker and not the institution. Before 2000, the world described by the news was first and foremost that of political actors and public administration officials; since 2000, news has become mainly about individuals who are staged, for various reasons, into news programs. The growing importance of individualistic discourse can be explained by technical factors (which have made it materially feasible), professional and organizational factors (which have convinced TV news producers that individual speech is an advantageous strategy, commercially and professionally) and socio-cultural factors (which have made this visibility of individual speech acceptable and even desirable to viewers).
 
 ***
 
 PT. Os boletins de notícias na televisão são compostos por um conjunto de vozes: vozes da rede de televisão responsável pela transmissão de notícias; vozes dos âncoras e repórteres que se sucedem na tela; vozes dos protagonistas e intérpretes dos eventos. Essa polifonia, desenvolvida e orquestrada por artesãos de telejornais, revela o tipo de relacionamento que eles procuram estabelecer com o mundo que presumem reportar e com o público que presumem informar. Uma análise diacrônica das vozes encontradas nas transmissões de notícias televisivas em Quebec desde a década de 1960 mostra algumas mudanças significativas. Duas categorias de interlocutores são ouvidas principalmente: jornalistas (apresentadores, repórteres, colunistas), de longe os mais loquazes (80% do tempo de fala), e atores de notícias (protagonistas, testemunhas e intérpretes de eventos). No início do período, o mundo retratado pelas notícias é principalmente o mundo das instituições sujeitas ao princípio da publicidade (parlamentos, assembléias públicas, tribunais e conferências de imprensa convocadas pelas principais instituições), nas quais o chamado discurso "oficial" domina. Essas vozes institucionais outrora dominantes deram lugar a interlocutores individuais, neste caso especialistas e "pessoas comuns", cujos discursos apenas se empenham. Antes de 2000, o mundo descrito pelas notícias é da preocupação dos atores políticos e líderes da administração pública; depois de 2000, as notícias são principalmente sobre indivíduos encenados, por várias razões, no programa de notícias. A crescente importância do discurso individualista pode ser explicada por fatores técnicos (que o tornaram materialmente viável), fatores profissionais e organizacionais (que fizeram o aprimoramento do discurso individual parecer aos telespectadores uma estratégia vantajosa, comercial e profissionalmente) e fatores socioculturais (que tornaram essa visibilidade do discurso individual aceitável e até desejável para os telespectadores).
 
 ***
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".