Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journaliste, Etudiante de 2e cycle School of Journalism University of British Columbia En 1990, John C. Merrill s’insurgeait devant « the vast global wasteland of crass and mass journalistic mediocrity »1 que constitue le monde des medias. Il remerciait toutefois le ciel – et quelques editeurs – de preserver quelques journaux ayant encore le pouvoir d’influencer nos decideurs. Il louait leur serieux et la qualite de leur information. Parmi les vingt « quality », « elite » ou encore « prestige newspapers » elus par l’auteur se trouvait le Globe and Mail, publie a Toronto. Ainsi, le journal national canadien devenait l’un de ces « wellinformed, articulate papers that thoughtful people the world over take seriously »2. Merrill soulignait a plusieurs reprises, comme un critere essentiel a l’etiquette « quality », l’« internationalite » de ces quotidiens, tant par leurs priorites editoriales que par leur influence. Douze ans plus tard, le Globe and Mail est toujours considere comme un membre de ce club prestigieux. Pourtant, au cours des vingt dernieres annees, le regard du Globe sur l’international a beaucoup evolue. Le journal a suivi une tendance repandue dans les medias americains qui repose sur la croyance generale que le public ne s’interesse pas a (ou n’achete pas) l’information internationale. Les redacteurs en chef se sont succede aux commandes, influencant le journal de leurs propres convictions. Et l’arrivee dans le paysage, en 1998, d’un concurrent de taille, le National Post3, a oblige le Globe a se renouveler.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".