MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024455479 · doi:10.1177/0963662510363379

Foodborne microbial risks in the press

2010· article· en· W2024455479 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Understanding of Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)HomogeneousPublic discourseMedia coverageOutbreakPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyGeographyBiologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outbreaks of foodborne illness generally receive abundant print media coverage. However, the framing of outbreaks and representations of foodborne pathogens in the media discourse are not necessarily homogeneous. Drawing on previous research on media coverage of emerging diseases and on the conceptual tools of framing theory, this paper explores the diversity of frames and representations used in the media coverage of two listeriosis outbreaks that occurred in Canada in fall 2008. In the dominant war against microbes frame, microbes are portrayed as posing serious risks that call for stringent control measures. This frame coexists with other frames which rather emphasize economic, ecosystem or nutrition issues and which are supported by representations of microbial risks that either mitigate these risks, present them as inevitable or as less serious than others. The implications of these observations for the public understanding of foodborne microbial risks are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.101 · 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