The construction of social imaginaries on terrorism in newspapers from Montreal and Guadalajara : a comparative study among three cultural groups
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aimed at finding out if participatory processes (group discussions, enactments, and others) do make a valuable contribution in communication-based project implementation/evaluation and the fight against HIV/AIDS. A case study backed by documentary analysis of evaluation reports and occasional insights from interviews stood as the main methods. To identify values, the state of beneficiaries prior to and after project implementation/evaluation was compared. Participatory processes were noted to have created an enabling environment for project beneficiaries to become activists for social change, leading to the limiting of the spread of HIV/AIDS through sexual behavior and a change of attitude--the essence required for successful intervention. Group participatory processes were also noted to have contributed in overriding, to a great extent, limitations arising from sociodemographic differences in the attainment of project objectives and limitations arising from differences in forms of evaluation (internal versus external evaluators).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it