MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559640168 · doi:10.1080/17512780902869074

“MOSQUITOES DANCING ON THE SURFACE OF THE POND”

2009· article· en· W1559640168 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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 Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaAustralian Government
KeywordsRealmWeb syndicationCompetition (biology)CensorshipPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the impact of technology on Australian conflict reporting using the experiences and insights of the practitioners themselves. There is a prevailing belief that war and foreign correspondents are more liberated and the audience better informed as technology permits immediate communication from the frontline. The article considers the challenges faced by previous generations of war correspondents and the contrasting experiences of reporting in Iraq, analysing how technology has impacted on newsgathering, military management and reporting. I argue that the magnitude of the technological changes has been considerable, and in some cases immensely positive, but in other ways technology has not mitigated past challenges in the realm of censorship, syndication, resources and competition. At the same time the journalists articulate new difficulties with instant deadlines, 24-hour news, increased syndication, and editorial expectations caused by the imperatives of infotainment and compounded by technological advancement. Keywords: AustraliacensorshipIraqtechnologywar journalism Acknowledgements I would like to thank Stuart Macintyre and Sally White for feedback on earlier drafts. Notes 1. Memo "Abolition of Status of War Correspondent", 27 June 1945, NA, FO 1013/1911; Policy re accreditation of war correspondents, 16 December 1945, WO 204 2215, NA, UK. 2. Letter to H. K. Fenn, Chief Cable Censor, from the United Press Association, 4 March 1942, Office of Censorship, Confidential Notes to Editors, 0-12, Box 146, National Archives and Records Administration, USA. 3. Most of the Australian correspondents preferred to report as unilaterals. Embedding was adopted as an additional or complementary form of reporting rather than the primary one and less than 10 Australian reporters were embedded during the initial months of the Iraq War. 4. Memo to H. K. Fenn, 18 April 1942, Office of Censorship, Confidential Notes to Editors, 0-12, Box 14, National Archives and Records Administration, USA. 5. Letter to M. E. Antrobus, Office of High Commission for UK from E. G. Bonney, 10 September 1943, National Archives of Australia. 6. The genesis and motivations for invading Iraq were particularly divisive. The editorial stance is of course central to any analysis of Iraq coverage and has indeed always been an issue in any conflict. The journalists interviewed and surveyed did not complain of any editorial interference or mention that technological innovation impacted on the editorial line.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.320 · 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