The Structural Stability of the Quebecer Public Sphere, 1956-1966: An Inquiry in the Elites' Power Struggles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the normative debate on the “ideal” public sphere is ongoing and did not reach any form of agreement since Jürgen Habermas’s thesis publication in 1962, the study of public spheres in actually existing democracies did not lose its relevance. Our thesis therefore joins this field of study by envisioning the public sphere as a conflict-centred source of legitimacy of the state. Guided by Jostein Gripsrud’s (ed.) framework in the study of the history of the Norwegian public sphere (2017a), the following pages dig into Quebec’s francophone political public sphere between 1956 and 1966. This period includes governments from two adversarial parties, and covers the transition between what has been called the “Great Darkness” and the “Quiet Revolution”. To do so, we study in a socio-historic perspective two main elements of the public sphere. That is, the media system and, in line with Terje Rasmussen’s study on Norwegian parliamentarianism (2015), the parliamentarian legislative work. That leads to an analytical description of the public sphere in Quebec between 1956 and 1966. Two important findings emerge from it: the structure of the public sphere is stable, yet the government change comes with a rise to power of a previously oppositional elite.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".