MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071061922 · doi:10.1080/14616700119247

Prospective News: press pre-framing of the 1996 Ontario public service strike

2001· article· en· W2071061922 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Graham Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournalism Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsFraming (construction)Public serviceSolidarityHegemonyPublic opinionIdeologyNarrativePolitical scienceNegotiationPolitical economySociologyPoliticsPublic administrationPublic relationsLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of press coverage leading up to the 1996 Ontario Public Service strike indicates how framing of the negotiations between the Ontario government and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union in terms of the dispute over "job security" shifted the critical focus onto the union. The dominant news frame of a prospective strike was articulated through a relatively conventional strike script focusing on the ways a strike would be problematic for the union with regard to public opinion, internal solidarity, and disruptive effects. While the government was portrayed as acting strategically and the union reactively, the dominant narrative explaining the position of both was an economistic one. An alternative, more marginal narrative explaining the government's motivation in political and ideological terms also appeared, but there was no equivalent narrative for the union. By relying on an economistic account, the news coverage acquiesced in the government's attempt to define the situation in its own terms, and thereby became implicated in reproducing the grounds of struggle for hegemonic resonance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournalism StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207