Pensée et discours de l’Action française de Montréal sur les Juifs (1917-1928) : Une représentation marginale, mais persistante
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’antisémitisme notamment au sein du discours des revues et des quotidiens nationalistes canadiens-français a longtemps constitué le sujet privilégié des recherches en études juives au Québec. Or, L’Action française de Montréal, très influente surtout pendant l’entre-deux-guerres, n’a pas fait l’objet d’analyse de la part des historiens sur cette question. Au cours de cette recherche, nous avons répertorié les mentions sur les Juifs afin de cerner la place occupée par ces derniers dans la pensée, le discours et la doctrine de L’Action française entre 1917 et 1928. Il ressort de cette étude que les représentations sur les Juifs sont marginales comparées à l’ensemble du contenu de la revue. Elles n’influencent pas son discours de manière significative et participent peu à l’élaboration de sa doctrine. Toutefois, les mentions sur les Juifs notamment sur les questions de l’économie, du cinéma, du respect du dimanche et de l’immigration sont suffisamment récurrentes pour conclure à la persistance de préjugés à l’égard des Juifs tout au long de la période étudiée.Anti-semitism, particularly in the discourse of French-Canadian nationalist magazines and dailies, has long been the favoured subject for research in Jewish studies in Quebec. However, L’Action française in Montreal, very influential especially during the interwar period, has not been analyzed yet by historians on this question. During this research, the sources regarding Jews have been listed in order to identify their place occupied in the thought, the discourse and the doctrine of the Action française between 1917 and 1928. This study demonstrates that the representations on Jews are marginal compared to the overall content of the review. They do not influence its discourse significantly and participate little in the development of its doctrine. However, the references to the Jews, in particular on the questions of the economy, the cinema, respect for Sundays and immigration are sufficiently recurrent to conclude that prejudices against Jews are persistent during throughout the period studied.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".