Journalistic Information: As mediated by Communications Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we present refl ections from the Brazilian section of the research group studying The Hybridization and Creation of Media Genres, comprising researchers from Brazil, France, Canada and the Reunion Islands, involving 25 researchers in 10 diff erent research centers. In the case of Brazil, we are working at the University of Brasilia (UnB) with a specifi c focus on “journalistic information mediated by communications institutions”). The epistemological design of the research is the theory of agenda-setting conceived as a reverse movement, that is, agenda-setting carried out backwards, from outside newsrooms to inside them by means of strategies developed and maintained by communications advisers, by Non-Governmental Organizationss that carry out advocacy with the media and by means of the media and other institutions that produce content for the conventional media at such a high level of specialization that they may be called ‘source media'
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".