Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article cherche à faire la lumière sur des déclarations tenues par la première ministre de l’Alberta Danielle Smith, lesquelles ont suscité beaucoup d’interrogations quant à leur nature controversée. À partir des analyses d’Hannah Arendt sur la vérité en politique et de celles d’Harry Frankfurt sur le baratin (bullshit), cet article montre que ses propos controversés appartiennent à la catégorie du baratin. Celui-ci repose sur une fonction performative qui permet à celui qui utilise ce type de discours de s’adresser aux personnes qui se méfient du gouvernement. Dans le contexte post-pandémique de l’Alberta où la droite est divisée, ce genre de discours permettait ainsi de ramener au sein du parti les partisans conservateurs insatisfaits de la gestion de la pandémie par le gouvernement conservateur de Jason Kenney. Enfin, l’article montre que ce type de discours qui veut réunir la droite implique aussi des risques de division.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".