La critique publique que s’adressent les journalistes et les politiques lors depolémiques. Dimensions métadiscursives et articulations de la démocratieen France, en Suisse francophone, au Québec et en Belgique francophone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis research focuses on the public critique of journalists and politicians during polemics in France, French-speaking Switzerland, Quebec and French-speaking Belgium. Using a socio-pragmatic discourse analysis, the research links this metadiscursive phenomenon to articulations of democracy. To do so, we rely on an analytical model that declines public critique in five metadiscursive dimensions: contextual, reprobative, relational, public and institutional. The results reveal contrasting ways of articulating democracy. In France, public debate tends to be structured around conflict as the driving force of democratic public exchange. In French-speaking Switzerland, collegiality guides political and journalistic practices and serves as a framework for a political public sphere that integrates the people in an institutional way. In Quebec, the negotiation between public actors, as a relational dynamic, invites to play an essential role of representativeness in the public sphere. In Frenchspeaking Belgium, journalists and politicians mobilize consensus as a tool for managing public conflicts that threaten democracy. Beyond these particular cases, a generalization allows us to define public critique as a democratic tool mobilized by journalists and politicians to respond to the mistrust of institutions. For these actors, the main discursive stake lies in the production of a discourse that participates in a process of legitimization that has become essential to the upholding of democratic institutions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".