MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981046320 · doi:10.1177/1470357214565580

Print advertising in anglophone and francophone Canada from a critical discourse analytical point of view: establishing different relations between the producer and viewer of advertisement images

2015· article· en· W1981046320 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingVisual languageGrammarPoint (geometry)Reading (process)Critical discourse analysisFrenchPower (physics)SociologyLinguisticsPolitical scienceArtBusinessVisual artsHumanitiesLawPoliticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates whether marketers use different visual designs in Canadian magazine advertisements to establish different types of contacts to, on the one hand, anglophone and, on the other hand, francophone viewers. The results of the content analysis, which is based on the Reading Images: Grammar of Visual Design (2006) model by Kress and Van Leeuwen, show that there are significant differences between the English and French advertisements regarding the relationship between the image-producer and viewer. In particular, there are differences concerning both the social distance and power relations between the image-producer and viewer as well as the involvement and detachment of the viewer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.285 · 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