MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081729907 · doi:10.1177/1464884913520198

Reconsidering ‘virtuous circle’ and ‘media malaise’ theories of the media: An 11-nation study

2014· article· en· W2081729907 on OpenAlexaff
James Curran, Sharon Coen, Stuart Soroka, Toril Aalberg, Kaori Hayashi, Zira Hichy, Shanto Iyengar, Paul K. Jones, Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Stylianos Papathanassopoulos, June Woong Rhee, Hernando Rojas, David Rowe, Rod Tiffen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournalism · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of Salford Manchester
KeywordsDemocracyPublic serviceVirtuous circle and vicious circleNews mediaPoliticsCompetence (human resources)MalaiseMedia relationsPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyMedia studiesLawPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study, based on a content analysis of television news and survey in eleven nations, explores the split between those who see the media as politically alienating and others who see the media as encouraging greater political involvement. Here, we suggest that both positions are partly right. On the one hand, television news, and in particular public service television news, can be very effective in imparting information about public affairs and promoting a culture of democracy in which news exposure, public affairs knowledge, sense of democratic competence and political interest feed off each other. On the other hand, the views represented in public affairs news are overwhelmingly those of men and elites, which can discourage identification with public life.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.020
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations78
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournalismSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207