MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976350712 · doi:10.15173/jpc.v3i1.137

Educating communication professionals: The case for ethics in the curriculum

2013· article· en· W1976350712 on OpenAlex
Patricia Parsons

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseCurriculumInformation ethicsValue (mathematics)Engineering ethicsApplied ethicsMeta-ethicsPedagogyProfessional ethicsPublic relationsNursing ethicsSociologyProfessional communicationPolitical sciencePsychologyManagementEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary examines the value of teaching ethics as a part of public relations and communications management education. It centers on the premise that teaching ethics to public relations students cannot provide any degree of assurance to future employers, or society, that these individuals will actually behave in an ethical manner. The question of whether it is ethical to teach ethics to students in the professions is raised – the author muses as to whether public relations faculties would have a different view of what they teach to their students, how they teach it and who teaches it if they were held accountable for the moral decisions of their graduates. ©Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it