Les interactions médiatiques des mouvements étudiants : du Printemps érable du Québec (2012) au Movimento secundarista de São Paulo (2015)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire se propose d’explorer les stratégies d’interaction entre les mouvements étudiants de Montréal, au Québec de 2012 et de São Paulo, au Brésil, de 2015 et les médias traditionnels. Je cherche à comprendre comment se construisent-elles ces stratégies d’interaction et j’ai identifié trois dynamiques pour expliquer le rapport entre mouvements-médias: lorsque les médias traditionnels publient les répertoires d’action et de communication du mouvement étudiant; lorsque les étudiantes et étudiants occupent l’espace journalistique; et à partir des réactions des mouvements par rapport aux médias. Les résultats montrent que les mouvements étudiants connaissent la logique des médias de masse et se comportent en conséquence, comme lorsque les associations étudiantes organisent des conférences de presse pour diffuser leurs idées et positions en réaction au gouvernement dans les médias traditionnels. _____________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : stratégies d’interaction; mouvement étudiant; médias traditionnels; printemps érable; occupation des écoles
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".