Le discours sur la migration dans la presse en Europe et au Canada : Analyse comparative de corpus anglophones et francophones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce travail vise à observer les différences entre les discours journalistiques portant sur une même thématique, la migration, mais provenant de deux zones géographiques distinctes, le Canada et l'Europe. Cette étude se base sur un corpus anglophone et francophone, composé d'articles de quotidiens canadiens, britanniques et français, traitant du sujet de la crise syrienne. Une analyse de type intra-linguistique est proposée pour comparer, d'une part, la presse anglophone canadienne à la presse britannique, et d'autre part, la presse francophone canadienne à la presse française. Deux séries de termes dénommant les migrants particulièrement significatifs sont analysées : l'étude de leurs cooccurrents et des idées qui leur sont associées permet d'identifier quelques spécificités de chaque zone géographique. Les enjeux politiques liés à l'accueil de migrants au Canada et la proximité de l'Europe avec les zones de conflit apparaissent comme des facteurs influençant le discours médiatique sur la crise migratoire syrienne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".