Chemical Controversy: Canadian and US News Coverage of the Scientific Debate about Bisphenol A
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes how newspapers covered the scientific controversy surrounding the health effects of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA). Specifically, it examines whether framing, sources of scientific information, and balancing of competing sides in the debate differed across national political contexts and journalistic approaches. In regard to the former, it compares coverage in Canada (represented by the Globe and Mail), which had banned BPA in baby bottles and cups, to coverage in the United States (represented by the New York Times and Washington Post), which had not. In regard to the latter, it compares coverage in two US newspapers that took a conventional journalistic approach (the New York Times and Washington Post) to coverage in a US newspaper that launched an investigative series regarding BPA (the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). The study concludes by considering what the findings suggest about how social forces shape coverage of scientific controversies involving environmental issues.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it