MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040220280 · doi:10.1080/02722010903128207

CBC News Coverage of Canada's 2006 Liberal Party Leadership Candidates

2009· article· en· W2040220280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen J. Farnswortha, S. Robert Lichter, Roland Schatz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominationPresidential systemPolitical scienceConventionTone (literature)Public administrationLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Content-coded CBC evening newscasts are used in this article to examine reports on the eight candidates for Liberal Party leader in the weeks before the party's 2006 convention. In a sharp contrast to news reports on US presidential nominations, The National provided coverage balanced between the horse race and more substantive matters, including policy discussions and a candidate's personality and leadership qualities. But as with US nomination coverage, The National largely ignored trailing candidates, focusing nearly all its attention on the likely and plausible nominees. In terms of tone, The National provided “compensatory coverage,” where front-runners were treated more negatively than the candidates who were further back in the field.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207