Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of bias in Québec political journalism has often been the subject of fierce debate; francophone journalists in Québec have long been accused of separatist bias by both anglophone journalists and the federal government. Such accusations rest on two questionable assumptions: that the media are more influential than deeply rooted cultural and historical experience, and that in the reporting of Québec issues, objectivity means that journalists can consider only federalism as a viable option for Quebecers. This article argues that the development of nationalism came first, with Québec journalists being influenced by nationalist ideas: not the other way around. Moreover, although the Québec media's coverage is different, this does not necessarily imply bias. The article focuses on the findings of two key studies of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Societé Radio-Canada coverage, which failed to find any evidence of such bias, and concludes that the persistence of the view that the Québec media lack objectivity and are manipulating the public on the issue of sovereignty arises out of a tradition of elite democracy.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".