MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014358003 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v5n2p55

A Critical Analysis of the Diaoyu Islands Dispute in American News Media

2015· article· en· W2014358003 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xin Jin, Shang Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyCritical discourse analysisSystemic functional linguisticsCriticismTransitive relationSociologySubject (documents)Discourse analysisLinguisticsField (mathematics)MetadiscourseEpistemologyNews valuesNews mediaMedia studiesPolitical sciencePoliticsLawComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical linguistics, also called critical discourse analysis (CDA), is a new subject which is based on linguistics as well as the achievements of scientific researches in the field of sociology, psychology, and mass media etc. It aims to penetrate the linguistic forms of discourse and then disclose how ideology influences discourse as well as how discourse affects ideology from various angles. The paper applies Halliday’s (2000) functional model and Fairclough’s (1989) model of CDA to make a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the eight news reports about Diaoyu Islands in the TIME magazine in 2012. The author takes Transitivity, Transformation and Modality as analytical tools to analyze the news report discourse. Through the analysis, the author finds that the seemingly objective news reports of American media are not merely the reflections of the reality, and the author tries to reveal the different ideologies hidden in them so that readers may have a better understanding of news discourse and news criticism as well.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207