A Media Frames Analysis of the Legacy Discourse for the 2010 Winter Paralympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The media play a particularly important role in shaping audiences’ perceptions and actively create the frames of reference that public readers and viewers use to interpret and discuss particular ideas, events, and politics (Entman, 2007). A frames analysis of local and national print media was utilized to examine the framing of “legacies” around the 2010 Vancouver Winter Paralympic Games. The analysis shows that despite the rhetoric from the host committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee about the increased media attention of these Paralympic Games, very little attention was given to legacy concepts despite an increasing discourse about its importance for all types of events. The framing of Paralympic legacy centered upon “othering” athletes with a disability through the supercrip narrative, highlighting potential opportunities for legacy and focusing on tangible economic developments. These issues do not represent a broadening of the scope of the legacy of the Paralympic Games and, in fact, the critical role of the media in reframing the discourse about disability and accessibility was largely absent from the media frames.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".