A Media Frames Analysis of the Legacy Discourse for the 2010 Winter Paralympic Games
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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