The Media and Public Agenda among the Malay and Chinese Communities during the 2008 Malaysian General Elections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Media are said to set the public agenda. However, the actual scenario of a public agenda among the Malay and Chinese communities in Malaysia has yet to be ascertained. This study employs both content analysis and survey to examine media and public agenda of two major ethnic groups during the 2008 General Elections. In total, 9,135 news items, relating to elections, were obtained from three major languange newspapers, comprising Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, Sin Chew Daily, Nanyang Siang Pau, The Star, and New Straits Times, during the campaign period. There were 12 important issues identified. Overall, the study found media agenda had no significant rank-order correlation with the public agenda, or the important issues raised by 1,454 Malay, Chinese, and Indian respondents nationwide. The same happens to the Malay media agenda with Malay public agenda. The study found the Chinese media agenda to have a significant rank-order correlation with the Chinese public agenda suggesting the newspapers influence among the Chinese readers on what to think about. Ethnic newspapers therefore could be setting the agenda for the various ethnic groups during elections.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".