MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059027767 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.48.6.867

How Not to Think about Crime in the Media

2006· article· en· W2059027767 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReductionismCultural criminologyPoliticsMeaning (existential)SociologyCriminologyState (computer science)Media studiesPolitical scienceEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article assesses the state of the art of current research on crime and the media. It argues that some key problems with previous research lie in simply assuming media effects, or in ascribing a reductionist unity to various aspects of the media and the ways they shape and are shaped by social relations and institutions. In reviewing various bodies of research on crime in the media, it indicates some of the limits of effects research. It further argues that the problematic question of the effects of influences of crime stories has been most effectively dealt with thus far by research that looks at the direct political and institutional effects of crime and the media. This should be supplemented by more interpretive research on the meaning of crime stories for particular audience members. Finally, it suggests that we need a sustained analysis of the interplay between crime news and crime fiction.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.237 · 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