MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165824251 · doi:10.3138/jcs.44.2.70

Drawn to the Polls? Representations of Canadian Voters in Editorial Cartoons

2010· article· en· W2165824251 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Linda Trimble, Laura Way, Shannon Sampert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyGlobeFederal electionMedia studiesVotingNarrativePoliticsNewspaperPolitical scienceSituatedTurnoutRepresentation (politics)SociologyPublic administrationLawPsychologyLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines representations of Canadian voters in the editorial cartoons printed by Canada’s national newspapers, The Globe and Mail and the National Post, during the 2004, 2006, and 2008 federal election campaigns. The authors argue that a consistent narrative is presented in the cartoons, a story of “citizens without democracy.” Despite widespread disinterest in elections amongst the Canadian public, evidenced by a steady decline in voter turnout, editorial cartoonists did not depict voting-age citizens as apathetic non-participants. Instead, the cartoonists situated voters as innocent bystanders to, or cynical observers of, the self-interested antics of political parties, news media, and pollsters. As such, these “editorials in pictures” blamed politicians and governments, not voters, for the failures of electoral democracy in Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0240.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207