Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many media scholars have used the news coverage of AIDS as a case study in the operation and effects of the mass media. This research has largely focused on interpretations of textual content, often with an underlying assumption that media workers have either distorted or misrepresented AIDS. However, the stream of media analysis which focuses on the structuring properties of newswork constraints would argue that the media content is in part a reflection of the process of newswork. This paper is organized into three sections: (a) an overview of the effects of newswork practices on content; (b) a survey of early social science research on the media coverage of AIDS; and (c) an application of theories on newswork to the results of open-ended interviews with journalists who covered the “AIDS beat.” In sum, the research finds that journalists, who work with newswork constraints daily, are somewhat aware of the effects of these limitations. However, they may also underestimate such effects, preferring to believe that their own media output is able to rise above such structural processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".