De « chiens de garde » à traducteurs de signaux : sur la relation entre les journalistes économiques et les sources du monde de la politique monétaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse à la relation entre les journalistes économiques et les sources du monde de la politique monétaire, et ce plus particulièrement lors de la publication du Rapport sur la politique monétaire par la Banque du Canada. Cette relation est analysée en termes d’asymétrie et de collaboration : les sources de la Banque du Canada et les économistes des banques privées s’imposent comme un passage obligé lors du travail de couverture, mais les journalistes tirent également profit de cette collaboration car celle-ci leur permet d’être plus efficaces et de gagner du temps. La politique monétaire est très peu propice au travail d’enquête car les journalistes économiques considèrent que leur rôle n’est pas de critiquer ou de surveiller la banque centrale, mais bien de « traduire » ses signaux vers le public.
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 | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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; 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".