Politiser l’économie : comment la théorie du capital comme pouvoir peut repenser la couverture journalistique de la Banque du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour la théorie du capital comme pouvoir, la Banque du Canada n’est pas indépendante, mais bien une institution politique qui fait amplement partie du mode de pouvoir du capitalisme financier. Les journalistes économiques québécois interviewés dans cette étude couvrent toutefois la banque centrale comme une institution plus indépendante que les politiciens et considèrent son discours comme de la science. Cette situation est renforcée par l’omniprésence des économistes néoclassiques dans l’espace public, par le manque de disponibilité des sources critiques universitaires, mais aussi par les contraintes de vitesse de publication. Conséquemment, les journalistes économiques renforcent l’hégémonie du discours néoclassique dans l’espace public, et donc légitiment l’ordre institutionnel du capitalisme financier.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".