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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several theorists have entertained the possibility that the egalitarian nature of Internet-based discussion may facilitate meaningful democratic deliberative discussions amongst citizens. This article provides a preliminary empirical test of these claims by examining the extent to which blogs and blogroll communities act as forums for such deliberations. The analysis uses a dataset derived from a content analysis performed on blogs from three Canadian partisan blogrolls in October 2005. We perform three tests of the deliberative qualities of blog-based discussions: (a) whether discussion is characterized by equality of participation; (b) whether bloggers discuss substantive issues; and (c) whether bloggers engage constructively in discussions with political opponents. We find that this online discussion does exhibit some deliberative characteristics but that this discussion is often characterized by inequality of discussion, a focus on non-substantive issues, and unconstructive engagement between bloggers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it