Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, the #metoo movement lead to the denunciations of public and private figures around the world. In the aftermath of the movement's various waves, media coverage of sexual assault gained considerable traction due to the popularity of the movement. In Canada, journalists gave voices to the victims, while exposing the abusers. Quebec stands apart from the rest of Canada, due to its historical and social context. Based on a social construction and critical feminism approach, media coverage in Quebec newspapers at the time of the first #metoo wave in 2017, as well as its successor in 2020 was analysed. This study shows that there was an evolution in the newspaper coverage of the movement between 2017 and 2020. Journalists were dealing with two different types of waves, which reflected in their coverage. Between both time periods, media coverage of the victims' public denunciations led to increased indignation towards rape culture, heightened concern about cancel culture, a need for better education and criticism of the justice system. Keywords metoo, Quebec, ledevoir, lapresse, lejournaldemontreal, metro, rozon, sexualassault, lacroix, rape
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".