MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2012747476 · doi:10.1353/esc.0.0068

The Balanced Boredom Campaign

2007· article· en· W2012747476 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Greg Elmer

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDigital Games and Media
Établissements canadiensToronto Metropolitan University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPoliticsPolitical scienceMedia studiesJournalismThe InternetSociologyPublic relationsLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IN THE FALL OF 2007 I WAS WOEFULLY UNPREPARED for the deluge Of media calls I was due to receive--requests for interviews from journalists seeking commentary on the role of the Internet in the Ontario provincial election. Having spent most of my academic life in the United States, I had found it highly unusual for media to call academics, especially to those of us working from a humanities or critical/cultural perspective. Nonetheless, there I was, Blackberry pressed to ear for much of the month of September, serving as an educator of sorts to a range of journalists from a number of media outlets--national, provincial, television, radio, print, and Internet based. As a media studies scholar, the experience served as a fantastic crash course in contemporary journalism. The month was both exhilarating and exhausting, though ultimately a welcome change from the confines of typical university life. Thus when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news invited me to work exclusively for the National and their many other news platforms in a similar capacity for the fall 2008 federal election campaign, I jumped at the opportunity--our collaborative research on new mediated politics (conducted with a number of my graduates students) would go on to receive substantial national attention. I was also keen on the CBC's request for exclusive use of our research and priority for commentary during the election as I figured it might cut down on the endless calls and long interviews I'd conducted with freelance reporters during the previous provincial election. I was right. Once I began the partnership with CBC news, far fewer news outlets, particularly private news outlets, called to seek out my commentary, even though the election by many accounts was dominated by a string of web-based scandals and events. While some reporters figured that I was too busy collaborating with CBC, others were surprisingly upfront about their political antipathy toward anything, or anyone, associated with Canada's public broadcaster. For instance, I was abruptly disinvited from participating on a radio call-in show once the host caught wind of my collaborative project with CBC news. We'd never have anyone on who works with the CBC;' I was told point blank. That such partisanship (and it was politically motivated, to be sure) exists in Canada's broadcasting system, and in particular newsrooms across the country, is hardly news itself. It was, however, the brash expression of such partisanship that struck me, particularly in retrospect, as the campaign wore on and our project received more attention from conservative voices across the country. But it was not the typical claims of liberal bias that conservative supporters started communicating to me about during the campaign with respect to our collaborative Ormiston Online project (named for the CBC reporter assigned to cover the internet during the campaign). (1) Rather, conservatives were furious at the project's success. Conservatives readily complained that our web- and television-based coverage of the internet campaign was too innovative, cutting edge, ahead of the curve, and novel. I would have blushed if not for the fact that these were offered as damning critiques! Advocates of public broadcasting in Canada have often missed the point of this personal tale--conservatives are no longer content with pointing out budgetary inefficiencies at Mother Corp., in part because opinion polls continue to strongly support the CBC and other publicly mandated and (in part) funded institutions. Rather, I discovered during the election that many conservatives were in fact critical of public institutions emulating and adopting market logics. A number of conservatives, for example, suggested that Ormiston Online was trying to corner the market through the promotion of its brand on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,857
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,293

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,302
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetDigital Games and MediaTravaux en français237 207