MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1535853360 · doi:10.1111/padm.12184

DETERMINANTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEDIATIZATION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ADAPTATION OF SWEDISH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO NEWS MEDIA

2015· article· en· W1535853360 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersVetenskapsrådetStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)Agency (philosophy)Public relationsMedia managementAdaptation (eye)Government (linguistics)Media coverageAffect (linguistics)Organizational structureBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article seeks to explain why the media affect some governmental agencies more than others. We develop a measuring instrument for the mediatization of agencies; gauging how they adapt to the media. We analyse the effects of six potential explanations of mediatization: media pressure, organizational size and task, salience, geographic location, and management structure. The analysis is based on a comprehensive quantitative contents analysis of policy documents from all governmental agencies in Sweden. The results show that agencies' propensity to adapt to the media is mainly determined by their management structure rather than, as could have been expected, by media pressure. Organizations managed by career managers invest more in media management than those led by field‐professionals. Our results suggest that agencies have substantial agency in terms of how they cope with the media and that mediatization refers to much more than passive adaptation by organizations.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.263 · 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