MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097472999

Power of Media and its influences on Politics and International Relationships of UAE

2015· article· en· W2097472999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amna Bulhoon

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPerspective (graphical)Power (physics)Order (exchange)Political communicationPolitical scienceMedia system dependency theorySociologyPublic relationsMedia studiesPolitical economyMedia relationsBusinessLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Media effect can be referred to as “theories regarding the manner in which the media impacts its audience.” These effects include their way of thinking, and behavior. From a political perspective, the media has an immense potential of influencing and even shaping the political system of a particular region or country. The various effects of the media are attributed to the fact that it has a capability of reaching at a large number of people at any given time. The media effects can also reach many people with a strong and significant message (Marshall & Quentin, 1964). Despite the fact that the media has been shown to influence the society psychologically, and academically, research shows that it influences these societal facets at different levels in order to support political foundations (London, 1993). This paper discover the power of media and its effects on the political and international relationship specially in the Arab world. It’s ended that media played a very important role in developing and changing people thoughts in the society and political part.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207