MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130927395 · doi:10.7202/017245ar

La couverture de presse et ses fonctions légitimantes

2005· article· en· W2130927395 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ronald D. Crelinsten

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceInvocationFunction (biology)LawEconomic JusticePolitical crisisFocus (optics)SociologyCriminologyLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the legitimating function of press coverage by means of a specific case study of political violence. Dissident actors who resort to violence to achieve their political goals are generally treated by the authorities as common criminals. This criminal justice model is reproduced and reinforced in the press by selective focus on specific, narrow topics at the expense of political analysis. These topics include the victims, the threat of future attacks, police activity, and the declarations of those in authority. In the October Crisis of 1970, this process was temporarily disrupted and a transient symmetry was achieved whereby the point of view of the dissident actors and their supporters received as much attention as the official perspective of the authorities. With the invocation of the War Measures Act, this symmetry was destroyed and press coverage once again returned to an almost exclusive focus on official definitions of the situation. The author suggests that this pattern of press coverage reflects a transient disruption in the legitimating function of the media whereby, in normal times, the reporting of “news” can reproduce and reinforce official views of dissident actors who use violence for political ends.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0290.015
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicCommunism, Protests, Social MovementsFrench-language works237,207