“What we have here is a failure to communicate”: Same-Sex Marriage, Evangelicals, and the Canadian News Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: From the time it was introduced, evangelicals in Canada were fervently opposed to the federal government's same-sex marriage legislation and from 2003 to 2006 several evangelical organizations waged an extensive lobbying campaign against it. To persuade the public and federal politicians to support their position, these organizations employed a sophisticated communication strategy that focused on three core arguments. The arguments, which were worked into speeches, petitions, presentations, letters, and media-savvy talking points, were not based on theological ideals but secular, empirical data. This study content analyzed news coverage from Canada's national newspapers and national television news programs that focused on evangelicals and the same-sex marriage debate. Based on the extant literature it was hypothesized that in their news coverage, in order to mitigate the influence of the evangelicals' position (with which they disagreed), journalists would ignore/omit the evangelicals' three core, non-religious arguments for opposing same-sex marriage. The hypothesis was supported.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".