MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163326259 · doi:10.1080/14241270209390006

Measuring newspaper readership: A qualitative variable approach

2002· article· en· W2163326259 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

VenueThe International Journal on Media Management · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudience measurementLatent class modelNewspaperLatent variableInterpretabilityLatent variable modelVariable (mathematics)Qualitative analysisVariablesEconometricsProfiling (computer programming)Content analysisComputer scienceStatisticsAdvertisingQualitative researchMathematicsSociologySocial scienceArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Newspaper readership is usually measured by a single variable such as frequency of use, amount of use, etc. This article argues that readership cannot be fully described by a single measure and suggests treating it as a latent variable reflecting the time, frequency, and completeness of readership on both Sundays and weekdays. This study uses data from 101 newspaper markets in the US. The latent variable can be either quantitative or qualitative. Factor analysis is used to define the quantitative variable and latent class analysis, the qualitative variable. The relationship between the approaches is studied with principal components analysis, profiling, and hierarchical linear models. The two approaches are shown to produce complementary conclusions when relating readership to demographics and content interests. Media consumption studies can examine both qualitative and quantitative latent variables and thereby enhance the interpretability and the scope of the results.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.132 · 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