MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602459117

Canada on the Move: an intensive media analysis from inception to reception.

2006· article· en· W1602459117 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guy Faulkner, Sara-Jane Finlay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationThematic analysisPrint mediaMedia useMedia coverageAdvertisingMedia studiesSociologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyComputer scienceQualitative researchSocial scienceBusinessSocial psychologyNewspaper
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research evaluating mediated physical activity campaigns uses an unsophisticated conceptualization of the media and would benefit from the application of a media studies approach. The purpose of this article is to report on the application of this type of analysis to the Canada on the Move media campaign. METHODS: Through interviews and document analysis, the press release surrounding Canada on the Move was examined at four levels: inception, production, transmission and reception. Analytic strategies of thematic and textual analysis were conducted. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The press release was well received by journalists and editors and was successfully transmitted as inferred from national and local television coverage, although there was no national print pickup. Canada on the Move was perceived by sampled audience members as a useful and interesting strategy to encourage walking. A holistic approach to media analysis reveals the complex and frequently messy process of this mediated communication process. Implications for future media disseminations of Canada on the Move are discussed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.098 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207