Political identities, presumed definitions, and protean portrayals: representations of the public-private healthcare debate in Canadian print media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian debate over public versus private delivery and financing of healthcare has been extensively represented in the news media and is an important issue to the public and policymakers. News media has complex and varied influences on its audiences including informing the public and potentially influencing the policy debate. This study explores the representation of the public-private healthcare debate in three Canadian newspapers over time. Using constructed-week sampling, I selected articles published between September 3, 1985 and February 23, 2009 containing search words related to the debate. I coded articles for content, agenda setting, and framing characteristics. The public-private debate was predominantly represented as a political issue and privatization was framed negatively. The agenda setting potential of the articles suggested a potential duality in the role of news media as potential agenda setters and communication agents for the policy debate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".