L’impact des politiques linguistiques sur l’usage de l’écriture inclusive dans les articles publiés entre 2018 et 2021 dans Libération et dans La Presse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article compare l’usage de l’écriture inclusive dans les quotidiens Libération (France) et La Presse (Québec), en lien avec les politiques linguistiques de chaque pays. L’écriture inclusive, un ensemble de pratiques visant l’égalité de représentation des genres, est recommandée au Québec depuis 1979, alors qu’en France, il faut attendre 1998. L’étude vise à déterminer si une recommandation gouvernementale plus ancienne au Québec se traduit par un usage plus marqué de l’écriture inclusive par rapport à la France. L’analyse linguistique du corpus d’articles révèle toutefois que les phénomènes inclusifs sont plus présents dans Libération que dans La Presse, ce qui suggère que l’impact des politiques linguistiques demeure limité.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".