Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about the media industries prioritizing profits over public service has historically given rise to proposals for a more professional model of journalism education (Commission on Freedom of the Press, 1947 Commission On Freedom Of The Press. 1947. A Free and Responsible Press: a general report on mass communication: newspapers, radio, motion pictures, magazines, and books, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]; Pulitzer, 1904 Pulitzer, Joseph. 1904. “The College of Journalism”. North American Review, 20: 641–80. [Google Scholar]; Royal Commission on Newspapers, 1981 Royal Commission On Newspapers. 1981. Report of the Royal Commission on Newspapers (Minister of Supply and Services Canada), Hull, Quebec: Canadian Government Publishing Centre. [Google Scholar]). In the context of neoliberal restructuring and a “professional crisis” in journalism, there have again been proposals for journalism education to help uplift professional journalistic values (Adam, 2001 Adam, G. Stuart. 2001. “The Education of Journalists”. Journalism, 2(3): 315–39. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Bollinger, 2003 Bollinger , Lee C . (2003) “Journalism Task Force Statement” , Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, April, http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/news/2003-04/taskforce.asp , accessed 7 November 2004 . [Google Scholar]; Carnegie Corporation, 2005a Carnegie Corporation (2005a) “A Vision for Journalism Education: the professional school for the 21st century news leaders: a manifesto”, April , http://www.carnegie.org/sub/program/initiative-manifesto.html , accessed 30 July 2005 . [Google Scholar]; Sauvageau, 2004 Sauvageau , Florian (2004) “Le Journalisme et l'Université: une union difficile” , conference paper . [Google Scholar]). This paper offers a critique of these recent journalism education reform proposals. While the proponents of professionalizing journalism schools acknowledge the structural and economic changes that are the culprits of the professional crisis in journalism, they place the onus of the solution on journalists, and they propose a model of journalism education that encourages students to refrain from critically analysing the media industries. The advocates of professional journalism schools also hark back to traditional journalistic ideals and notions of objectivity which some critics argue contributes to public apathy and damages prospects for participatory democracy. This paper will conclude by exploring recent proposals for a critical journalism pedagogy, which overcomes some of the problems of the professional reform model (Atton, 2003 Atton, Chris. 2003. “What Is ‘Alternative’ Journalism?”. Journalism, 4(3): 267–72. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Skinner et al., 2001 Skinner , David , Compton , James and Gasher , Mike J . (2001) “Putting Theory to Practice: a critical approach to journalism studies” , Journalism 2 (3) , pp. 341 – 60 .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]).
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.058 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".