MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1717166185 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2011v36n1a2391

Making Our Media: Global Initiatives Toward a Democratic Public Sphere, Vol. One: Creating New Communication Spaces.

2011· article· en· W1717166185 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobalization and Cultural Identity
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sphereDemocracyPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he first volume of the two volume set, Making Our Media ana- lyzes a collection of locally directed radio, video, and web-based news projects from around the world to assess how evolving tools, players, spaces, and methods are impacting media projects invested in participatory practices and social change.Sensitive to the realities of global inequalities the authors engage in timely discussions on the opportunities as well as the challenges of participatory media.The collection of essays comes out of a decade of ongoing exchanges between media producers, activists, academics, and policy advocates who are part of the transnational Our Media Network, which bridges theory with practice to inform and transform the practice of citizen media.Co-editors Dorothy Kidd and Clemencia Rodriguez explain, "Our Media provides a meeting space to exchange, support, and strengthen these more inclusive and participatory media and to collaborate on larger efforts to democratize national and global media systems" (p. 1).The collective expertise of the Our Media scholars is interwoven throughout the book.In addition to 13 case studies that appraise media projects from nine countries around the world, there are reflective introductions to each of the four sections of the volume.These introductions help frame the case studies with historical and theoretical context and draw on the experience of the practitioners and theorists involved in the Our Media Network.The result is that the volume reads like an organic but extremely well facilitated conversation appraising innovative grassroots media projects as well as the theories that frame these practices.Kidd and Rodgriguez introduce the volume by revisiting "watershed historical moments in the global mediascape of the last thirty years" (p.2).In an era where "participatory" has become almost a catch all phrase for any media circulating on the Internet, the editors provide a useful definition, suggesting that projects are "based in collective design, decision making, creative interchange and governance, at all stages of the production and circulation of meaning and up to and including the ownership and self government of the media outlet" (p. 6).Nick Couldy in his introduction to the first section, "Pushing Theoretical Boundaries," raises a series of provocative questions that frame many of the essays: "What do we call what we study?What aspects of this practice do we give the greatest priority to investigating?For example is it the processes that underlie these diverse media practices or how they impact audiences?"(p.25).The three authors of this first section are media producers and researchers and their practical experience informs their theoretical frameworks.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.162 · 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