Propagande anti-laïcité: Une forme de communication manipulatoire au Québec et en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thanks to globalization, the Anglo-Saxon liberal multiculturalist system seems to be establishing itself as the only possible alternative in Western countries. However, this system, whose religious roots are deeply anchored, is opposed to the French civilist and secular republican system and to the expectations of the majority of French and Quebec citizens. On each side of the Atlantic, followers of the Anglo-Saxon liberal multiculturalist system and religious fundamentalists are jointly waging a fight against secularism. Their new weapon is communication, or more precisely its diversion, propaganda. In this work, we study this manipulative communication in Quebec as in France. We systematically compare speeches, articles, works, elements of language, jurisprudential decisions, numerical data, with the evidence given in support of this communication. The ten years of debates in the National Assembly of Quebec before the vote, on June 16, 2019, of the first law on state secularism in Canada, make it possible to analyze the speeches of pro and anti secularism and to isolate the main arguments. In France, we must return to the law of 1905 and the debates of 1905 in the Chamber of Deputies to know the letter and spirit of this law emblematic of French secularism.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".