The Punjabi diaspora in a time of media hybridization: The empowering of ‘counterpublics’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the ways in which three Punjabi-Canadian news outlets in British Columbia push back against negative representations in the mainstream press, while drawing attention to causes of concern to members of that diasporic community in Canada and around the world. \nI argue that the three outlets reflect the formation of “public sphericules,” which both provide counter-narratives to mainstream discourse and offer coverage that attempts to integrate members of that diasporic group into mainstream Canadian society. These are important roles for a number of reasons; because of the negative representations of South Asians that have characterized the Canadian mainstream press’ coverage; and because multicultural news outlets help people to negotiate between their physical and cultural homes. Scholars in the areas of diasporic studies, South Asian studies, and counterpublic formation inform this thesis. \nThrough qualitative interviews with the editors at each of the publications, as well as through a two-month framing analysis of the coverage at the outlets, this study explores how multiple public sphericules can be bonding agents, building a sense of cohesion within a cultural community, while at the same time bridging that cultural community with the larger communities in which they live.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".