MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122553096 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2006v31n1a1595

Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating

2006· article· en· W2122553096 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ivor Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheatingJournalismDysfunctional familyAction (physics)SociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceEpistemologyPublic relationsPsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Revew Essay examines four books that offer a variery of explanations fabrication and plagiarism within journalism. They include explanations offered by the two most famous recent perpetrators of fabrication (Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass), as well as an analysis of the recent scandals at the New York Times and of cheating in the wider society. Among the explanations probed are workplace pressure, the “star” system in journalism, and the culture of trust and lack of policing within news organizations. Simpler explanations are rejected, including pure ambition, lack of ability, dysfunctional management, and affirmative action.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207