Law in the Age of Media Logic: An Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The eleven papers in this volume address a range of theoretical and empirical issues examined at the Oñati workshop, "Law in the Age of Media Logic." Several papers explore the politicization of the media's reporting of the Courts and of judicial nominations, and consider how this reporting affects public support of the judiciary in different countries, including Israel, the United States, and Canada. Several other papers assess the "trials by media" that play out in the coverage of the criminal justice system. These papers consider a number of topics, including the criminalization of firearms litigation, the tension between a free press and fair trials, and the social media depictions of criminal justice. Finally, several papers analyze the judiciary's public relations strategies, and examine the various institutional changes that shape the public image of legal systems today. Los once artículos de este número abordan diversas cuestiones teóricas y empíricas tratadas en el workshop de Oñati, “Law in the Age of Media Logic”. Algunos artículos analizan la politización de los medios de comunicación cuando hablan de los tribunales y los nombramientos judiciales, y consideran cómo esta cobertura afecta al apoyo público del sistema judicial en diferentes países, como Israel, Estados Unidos o Canadá. Otros artículos evalúan los “juicios mediáticos” que se llevan a cabo en la cobertura del sistema judicial penal. Estos artículos tienen en cuenta temas como la criminalización de los litigios por armas de fuego, la tensión entre la libertad de prensa y los juicios justos, y la representación de la justicia penal que realizan los medios de comunicación social, y analizan los diferentes cambio institucionales que dan forma a la imagen pública de los sistemas legales hoy en día. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2516197
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".