La présence de stéréotypes dans les articles d'opinion l'exemple de la communauté juive de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente étude analyse l'utilisation des stéréotypes sur les Juifs et les Québécois d'ascendance canadienne-français à travers les articles d'opinion parus dans deux des principaux journaux francophones de Montréal, soitLa Presse et Le Devoir , de 1988 à 2008. Nous comparons la manière par laquelle différents types d'auteurs d'articles d'opinion cherchent à activer ou à désactiver les stéréotypes envers les deux groupes. Nous établissons dans quelle mesure ils véhiculent des stéréotypes envers les membres de l'autre groupe, mais aussi envers les membres de leur propre groupe. Nous montrons finalement que les interventions médiatiques sont largement concentrées autour de polémiques et d'événements médiatiques et nous nous questionnons sur ce que révèle ce type de discours sur l'opinion plus générale qu'entretiennent les groupes les uns par rapport aux autres.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".