Views of Negativity in U.S. Newspaper Coverage of the Canadian Health System: How Health Policy Experts on Opposite Sides of the 49th Parallel See It
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess newspaper coverage of the Canadian health system, thirty-four U.S. and Canadian health policy experts rated the neutrality of the headlines drawn from all major news stories in The New York Times ( NYT) and The Wall Street Journal ( WSJ) during a five-year period, excluding opinion pieces and editorials. Coverage of the Canadian health system by the WSJ and NYT was judged as overwhelmingly negative by our sample of policy experts. But the judgments of some of them differed depending on whether they were Canadian or American. Canadian experts were more likely than those from the United States to assess coverage as negative, especially for NYT articles. Conversely, U.S. policy experts more frequently judged NYT headlines as favorable, relative to their Canadian counterparts. Experts' reactions to newspaper coverage of the Canadian health system appear to depend on national identity to some extent. Possible explanations for press negativity are examined.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".