MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003779702 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.48.6.905

News, Truth, and the Recognition of Corporate Crime

2006· article· en· W2003779702 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John L. McMullan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialPoliticsTruth tellingTragedy (event)State (computer science)Power (physics)SociologyCriminologyLawPolitical sciencePsychologySocial sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a study of how the press registered and re-registered news as truth about the Westray explosion and its aftermath from 1992 to 2002. The research examines 1,972 news stories and uses Michel Foucault's concept of the “politics of truth” and Stanley Cohen's ideas about cultural denial to understand the social organization of news production and the implications of the media for witnessing and accounting for Westray's “truth” when corporate and state institutions stand accused. I argue that truth-telling exercises were diverse and divergent and produced “regimes of truth” around natural accident, legal tragedy, and political scandal. But the absence in the presence of these varied truth-telling exercises was a social vocabulary of corporate crime. This absence marked the limit of the press's ability to tell the truth to powerful corporate and state interests, the place where their truth-telling was made coincident with the exercise of power and where workplace crime was made invisible in popular culture.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénaleSame topicCrime, Deviance, and Social ControlFrench-language works237,207