Authenticity Through Cooperation of the Host and the Guests in a Chinese TV Talk Show
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TV talk shows have always been the focus of attention in mass media studies from the perspective of discourse analysis. Many studies are centered on how the hosts and guests achieve their respective authenticity. What remains largely unexplored is how the hosts and guests cooperate to construct authenticity for the talk show. By focusing on the cooperative nature of the relationship between the hosts and the guests in the realization of this authenticity intended by the talk show Behind The Headlines With Wen Tao, this paper explores the content and form to demonstrate how the talk show successfully provides news information and entertains the audience in a genuine sense through cooperation strategies. Key words: talk show, authenticity, cooperation Resume: Le talk show est depuis longtemps le foyer d’attention dans l’etude des mass medias dans la perspective de l’analyse du discours. Beaucoup des recherches sont centrees sur comment les animateurs et les invites accomplissent leur authenticite respective. Ce qui reste largement explore, c’est comment les animateurs et les invites cooperent pour construire l’authenticite du programme. En concentrant sur la nature cooperative de la relation entre les animateurs et les invites dans la realisation de cette authenticite attendue par le programme de talk show Derriere le gros titre avec Wen Tao, le present article explore le contenu et la forme afin de demontrer comment le talk show offre avec succes de nouvelles informations et entretient l’audience avec des strategies de cooperation. Mots-Cles: talk show, authenticite, cooperation 摘要：近年來，電視脫口秀一直是大眾媒體話語分析研究的焦點，其中的很多研究把重點放在主持人和嘉賓如何實現各自在節目中表現的真實性上，但是，支持人和嘉賓如何齊心合作構建節目的真實性卻未得到深入細緻的分析。本文通過分析鳳凰衛視《鏘鏘三人行》中主持人和嘉賓為節目真實性進行的合作，研究了節目的內容和形式，探討了他們如何成功的通過合作策略真實的向觀眾提供新資訊和娛樂元素。 關鍵詞：脫口秀；合作；真實性
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".