MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112794374 · doi:10.1177/1075547015574015

The Role of Media References During Public Deliberation Sessions

2015· article· en· W2112794374 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationDeliberationPublic relationsPsychologyNews mediaEvent (particle physics)Reflection (computer programming)Political scienceComputer scienceSociologyMedia studiesPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One intrinsic component of public engagement events on scientific issues that has been ignored is the role of media representations as informational inputs. This is despite inferences that media representations may support learning, reflection, misinformation, or polarization during an event. In this article, we examined the role of media references during a public deliberation on advanced biofuels, revealing how participants used them for various purposes, such as supporting their points of view, challenging others, and adding information to the discussion. However, media references steadily decreased over time, and our analysis revealed that they ultimately had a limited influence on deliberations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.266 · 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