MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105374319 · doi:10.1002/meet.2014.14505101004

Informational and media failures and potential successes

2014· article· en· W2105374319 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Budd, Lai Ma, Ronald E. Day, Siobhan Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPublic opinionInternet privacyJoin (topology)Public relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceInformation exchangePsychologyLawMathematicsTelecommunicationsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT There are numerous situations in which people depend upon reliable reportage and information exchange. In many of the instances media and informational sources fail to inform—to give shape to—opinion and belief. The panelists present some of the ways those failures occur and they urge the audience to join in the quest for alternatives that can lead to successful informing that can contribute to democracy and the public good.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationFrench-language works237,207