MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043297181 · doi:10.1177/0891241610385456

Emotions Contests and Reflexivity in the News: Examining Discourse on Youth Crime in Canada

2010· article· en· W2043297181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Adorjan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Ethnography · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCulpabilityNewspaperMoral panicReflexivitySociologyScholarshipStrict constructionismCriminologyNarrativeIdentity (music)News mediaMedia studiesSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author explores how three Canadian newspapers address appropriate reactions to youth crime during the 1990s. While recent scholarship has emphasized the ways in which moral panics have become more complexly represented within mass media, the author pays attention to how such representational tactics are played out, drawing particular attention to emotional reactions to youth crime. Comparing and contrasting regional and national, as well as tabloid versus broadsheet newspapers, the author draws attention to “emotions contests,” which are closely related to victim contests over young offender culpability and identity. Emotions contests occur where emotional reactions to social problems become, themselves, the source of contention. News reflexivity is a central feature of these articles, whereby references to “the media’s” representational strategies are often espoused through the media themselves. The author suggests areas for advancement of constructionist analyses of emotions discourses in relation to social problems debates.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0400.024
Scholarly communication0.0170.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary EthnographySame topicCrime, Deviance, and Social ControlFrench-language works237,207