MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993433110 · doi:10.1177/0267323105064044

Is There a European Public Sphere?

2006· article· en· W1993433110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Downey, Thomas Koenig

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Communication · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sphereEuropean unionParliamentPolitical scienceFraming (construction)European integrationEuropean studiesPolitical economyMedia studiesSociologyLawPoliticsHistoryEconomicsInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, it has been argued that, despite the absence of European-wide mass media, a European public sphere is emerging, as some issues of European relevance become debated at the same time with the same intensity and with recourse to the structures of meaning throughout the entire European Union. This article examines the media framing of Silvio Berlusconi's controversial address as president of the European Council of Ministers to the European Parliament on 2 July 2003, in which he compared the Social Democrat MEP Martin Schulz to a kapò, an auxiliary concentration camp guard. The data are drawn from six EU countries, the US, Canada and Switzerland and show that while the reporting of the speech do satisfy two of Schlesinger's three criteria for the development of a European public sphere – the existence of a Europe-wide news agenda that is part of everyday media consumption of large audiences across nation-states – the data do not indicate a European transcendence of national public spheres.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0250.022
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of CommunicationSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207