MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499458350 · doi:10.1080/14616700600890414

TEACHING JOURNALISTS TO SAVE THE PROFESSION

2006· article· en· W1499458350 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournalism Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJournalismNewspaperContext (archaeology)ManifestoCorporationCommissionPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it