Servir l’intérêt public ou l’orthodoxie économique ? Analyse comparative de la couverture médiatique des communications de la Banque du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une analyse de contenu s’attardant à tous les articles portant sur les communications de la Banque du Canada publié en 2018 par trois médias québécois : La Presse, Radio-Canada et le magazine Les Affaires. Il en ressort que les journalistes économiques québécois, autant radiophoniques que de la presse écrite, ont diffusé et légitimé l’économie néoclassique parce qu’ils relaient le fait que l’inflation est un phénomène strictement monétaire, que les individus sont hyperrationnels, qu’une crise économique vient de chocs externes, que le libre-échange est absolument nécessaire et que l’endettement est un outil pour mieux répartir ses dépenses. Par le fait même, ceux-ci ne remplissent pas les valeurs d’équilibre et d’impartialité journalistique ; ils ne servent donc pas l’intérêt 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".