MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1717112897 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2006v31n2a1544

Fear and Coughing in Toronto: SARS and the Uses of Risk

2006· article· en· W1717112897 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityElitePlague (disease)Rhetorical questionMoral panicRisk societySociologyPublic healthPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedia studiesCriminologySocial scienceLawHistoryMedicinePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2003 SARS outbreak in Toronto offers an opportunity to study the ways risk has come to form a rhetorical basis for public discussions of morality in contemporary Canadian society. This paper combines Ewald’s precautionary description of risk functionality with Douglas’ pollution theories to analyze quantitative and qualitative data taken from a print media content analysis. Precautionary conceptions are pre-eminent at the outset of the story, while pollution formulations become more important when the international community accuses Toronto of hosting a plague. This shift in emphasis between the two risk formulations is linked to a change in story frames from a public-health focus to an economic one. The paper concludes that risk is defined, redefined, and deployed as a moral tool and agent of social control by members of Canada’s information elite.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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