MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511367007

Qualitative Political Communication| Understanding the Impact of the Transnational Promotional Class on Political Communication

2015· article· en· W1511367007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa Aronczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical communicationLegitimacyPublic relationsIntermediaryQualitative researchSociologyField (mathematics)Communication studiesPolitical scienceSocial scienceMarketingBusinessLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is an overture to political communication researchers to broaden their categories and contexts of analysis when assessing the role of promotional practices in political life. It aims to make both methodological and empirical contributions to qualitative political communication research. Drawing on ongoing research into the proliferation of political communication strategies around the exploitation of oil in Canada and the United States, the article analyzes efforts by promotional intermediaries to achieve legitimacy for their clients in three sites: Montreal, Canada; Houston, Texas; and Fort McMurray, Alberta. Bringing to light the tools, techniques, and claims to authority of promotional actors and their practices, the article demonstrates the importance of field research to the analysis of political communication. By getting inside the social worlds of the actors and processes involved, researchers can make sense of the ways that political communication is defined, understood, and acted upon by interlocutors and audiences. The article also addresses specific methodological challenges of undertaking this research.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.592
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.029 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207