Entre la fiction et le crime véritable : l’enquête comme alibi dans <i>Détective mystère </i>et <i>Drame judiciaire</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1946, deux publications axées sur les récits d’enquête voient le jour au Québec, Détective mystère et Drame judiciaire. Publiées par des éditeurs populaires, ces feuilles à cinq sous se présentent comme des simulacres de journaux, au format et à l’orientation thématique quasi identiques. Elles mettent toutes deux en scène des figures d’enquêteurs canadiens-français et véhiculent un discours inquiétant sur la criminalité à Montréal. Cependant, leurs stratégies pour rejoindre le lectorat divergent : tandis que Détective mystère publie des récits fictionnels en adaptant les séries romanesques françaises du début du xxe siècle, Drame judiciaire puise dans la presse nord-américaine et s’inspire des magazines de type true crime. Malgré ces sources culturelles distinctes, les deux titres s’apparentent fortement dans leur fondement idéologique et leur manière d’user de l’enquête comme d’un alibi pour peindre le crime.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".