Gertrude J. Robinson (2005). Gender, Journalism, and Equity. Canadian, U.S., and European Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gertrude J. Robinson's latest book Gender, Journalism, and Equity deserves to be reviewed in this journal for several reasons: First, the book is relevant for survey research: It has an international comparative perspective and documents findings of several journalist surveys in Canada, the USA, and Europe. It is primarily based on Robinson's own surveys of Canadian journalists in the 1970s and 1990s, which are interesting because of their complex multistep sampling procedure and inspiring questionnaire design combining question models adapted from other journalist surveys as well as newly developed models. Second, the book is relevant for public opinion research because of the important role journalists have in the process of public opinion formation: On the one hand, they participate in constructing and framing the public issues agenda. On the other hand, their selection of issues as well as the way they describe events stylistically and give meaning to them is influenced by their own socialization, their role perceptions and professional standards, their stereotypes and individual opinions. Gender is doubtlessly an important category in this interaction of journalistic work and public opinion formation: (gender-) stereotypes are transmitted and confirmed by media coverage, they frame the public discourse and become perpetuated in social life. Third, the book is relevant because of its Canadian focus. Although there is a long tradition of Canadian communication and journalism research, the country is quite frequently neglected in mainstream communication research, and stereotypical judgments about it sometimes determine its perception in our discipline. Fourth, the book is relevant because of its author. In this book, Robinson's academic interests and her own experiences culminate. It is an exceptional document of the academic life and work of a resourceful and creative scholar who has herself lived and worked in Europe, the USA, and Canada and who has learned in her own teaching and research that ‘gender matters’ (p. 1).
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 | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".