MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1813672686 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2003v28n4a1392

Digital Media and the Public Information Environment: A Retrospective Assessment

2003· article· en· W1813672686 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Myles Ruggles

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsDigital mediaFunction (biology)Event (particle physics)Political scienceNew mediaPublic relationsMedia studiesSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ten years after the emergence of the World Wide Web, the implications of new digital technologies for the news and public information function of the media are still a topic of vigorous debate. This paper, which is merely a preliminary report on an unfinished review of the literature pre-dating that event, revisits some of the critical analyses that had been articulated about the new digital media when the Web emerged. The intent of this larger, not-yet-completed project is to evaluate some major tendencies, already mapped a decade ago by research in the political economy of telecommunication, against the actual outcomes of the intervening decade of development and use of the new digital technologies of information and communication. Where the early predictions are confirmed, this re-evaluation may provide a simple means to distinguish persistent structural distortions in the public information environment from transitory or local effects, superficial influences, and alarmist predictions. Where the early results are refuted or less clearly confirmed, it may provide insight into the limits of political-economic methods of analysis.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Communication→Same topicSocial Media and Politics→French-language works237,207→