Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study intended to check on the value and directionality of sports journalism through examination of news programs covering Vancouver Winter Olympic and has come up with following conclusions. Firstly, news reports covering Vancouver Winter Olympic had their focus consistently on the results of games. They had no regards whatsoever to international politics surrounding the Olympic game nor did they take any interest in cultural and social significance associated with the Olympic venue. The broadcast news reports were only limited to the results of popular games and ensuing analysis thereof. Secondly, reports concentrated only on gold medalists. Despite the fact that Olympic is an event meant to realize its spirit of peace and harmony by virtue of sports, our news reports centered heavily on Korean gold medalists. Thirdly, news reports covering Vancouver Winter Olympic disclosed lack of substantial balance among different news programs covering respective games. More specifically, some games were reported more often than not via stand-alone programs while others covered only as part of general report programs. This resulted in differences in terms of the quality of news programs. Fourth, there were cases in which provocative languages were used in reports. As mentioned earlier, sports journalism takes it granted for dramatic elements to a certain extent. Even such case, however, should not deviate from the general principles of journalism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".