Analysis of the Science and Technology Narrative within Organ Donation and Transplantation Coverage in Canadian Newspapers
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
Organ failure is one cause of death. Advancements in scientific research and technological development made organ transplantation possible and continue to find better ways to substitute failed organs with other organs of biological origin or artificial organs. Media, including newspapers, are one source of information for the public. The purpose of this study was to examine to what extent and how science and technology research and development are covered in the organ transplantation and organ donation (ODOT) coverage of n = 300 Canadian newspapers, including the two Canadian newspapers with national reach (The Globe and Mail, National Post). The study generated qualitative and quantitative data addressing the following issues: (1) which scientific and technological developments are mentioned in the ODOT coverage; and (2) what issues are mentioned in the coverage of scientific and technological advancements linked to ODOT. We found little to no coverage of many technological and scientific advancements evident in academic and grey literature covering ODOT, and we found little engagement with social and ethical issues already raised about these advancements in the literature. The only area we found to be covered to a broader extent was xenotransplantation, although the coverage stopped after 2002. We argue that the newspaper coverage of ODOT under reports scientific and technological advancements related to ODOT and the issues these advancements might raise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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