GLOBAL MEDIA ON THE SPOTLIGHT: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH OLYMPIC BID BOOKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O objetivo deste estudo é identificar e discutir as construções discursivas que envolvem as operações midiáticas em três livros de candidatura oficiais: Londres 2012, Rio 2016 e Madrid 2020. A análise do discurso foi conduzida baseada em uma compreensão de discurso que é atenta ao papel que desempenham as autoridades esportivas (aquelas responsáveis pela elaboração dos livros de candidatura); o público-alvo destes livros (membros executivos do Comitê Olímpico Internacional); e as circunstâncias em que o texto é produzido, circulado e comunicado (a candidatura de uma cidade a sediar os Jogos Olímpicos). Em geral, os discursos analisados refletem uma tendência para a homogeneidade no complexo global da mídia esportiva reproduzem as complexas relações de reciprocidade entre a mídia e as organizações esportivas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".